Project causing major insecurities

Last year during a songwriting festival in Nashville, I promised to donate a song to a very wonderful lady I met there. She started a project called "Songs for Autism." So, it's a charity album to genereate money for the costs associated with educating autistic children.

There's no pro studios (like I would have the money anyway) around my area. For that & a couple of other reasons, I have set about producing this single in my home studio.

I've got the bulk of the recording done (still lack harmonies & steel guitar) & have gone ahead & started the mixing process. The song is one I wrote many years ago & have sung hundreds of times, but man I am just not a "pro-quality" vocalist. I get by fine live, but the scrutiny of the tape is proving to be very unsettling. Throw on top of that, I am pretty much an amaeture engineer & producer & it's getting to be pretty stressful as the deadline is approaching.

I'm REALLY nervous that the quality of the recording/mix & the vocals will be so far under "Nashville standards" that I will be laughed off of the album.

Advice?

The first thing I would do is is have an objective listener, listen to your song, in context
with the other songs on that album project. You may not be as bad as you think.

Stick it up on Soundcloud or something and put it up here for some advice if you're super dubious.

I will post it here. Always a ton of good objective advice on this forum. At work tonight. I'll get it posted tomorrow.

Do many many MANY takes until you get something acceptable. And then OVERDUB DOUBLE the track. On some hook passages, I like to double a track hard panned to the left and right. That's 4 tracks of vocals singing the same thing, 2 to the left, 2 to the right. Any tracks that may be slightly off (not off completely, but slightly), blended properly will give it a Chorusy effect, instead of one track sounding off pitch.

The trick here to is that you have to manually edited the clips so they start and end together.

There are also "AUTOTUNE" effects which I am not too good at using, but this is what the pros use to polish it up. Good luck!

Last year during a songwriting festival in Nashville, I promised to donate a song to a very wonderful lady I met there. She started a project called "Songs for Autism." So, it's a charity album to genereate money for the costs associated with educating autistic children.

There's no pro studios (like I would have the money anyway) around my area. For that & a couple of other reasons, I have set about producing this single in my home studio.

I've got the bulk of the recording done (still lack harmonies & steel guitar) & have gone ahead & started the mixing process. The song is one I wrote many years ago & have sung hundreds of times, but man I am just not a "pro-quality" vocalist. I get by fine live, but the scrutiny of the tape is proving to be very unsettling. Throw on top of that, I am pretty much an amaeture engineer & producer & it's getting to be pretty stressful as the deadline is approaching.

I'm REALLY nervous that the quality of the recording/mix & the vocals will be so far under "Nashville standards" that I will be laughed off of the album.

Advice?

JJ, you're already doing several things right: working consistently for a finished project, premixing to tidy up your tracks as you go, feeling concern for the quality of your finished product in the early going (rather than a "fix-it-in-the-mix" mentality). For some folks — like me, for instance — insecurity is a consistent part of the landscape. I hate the recorded sound of my own voice, and feel way behind the producing/engineering curve since I only started recording digitally several years ago at a rather, um, advanced age.

All the posts so far have some great advice and suggestions. If you let your anxiety work as a motivator to improve your skills, everything will turn out fine. It's all about getting experience and learning on the fly. You can learn quickly around this board, because everybody enjoys helping when they can. Here on the RIP forum, you can learn cruel truths with a minimum of pain — it's helped me immensely on many projects. So post what you've got ASAP, looking forward to hearing it!

What recording program are you using? Also, will this CD be mastered prior to release?

Thanks guys! Here's the track for your constructive feedback.

http://soundcloud.com/a-j-howard/evans-song-mix-5-1

Last year during a songwriting festival in Nashville, I promised to donate a song to a very wonderful lady I met there. She started a project called "Songs for Autism." So, it's a charity album to genereate money for the costs associated with educating autistic children.

You know, I think any decent person will be appreciative and grateful that you voluntarily put in the time and effort to contribute to a charity project. It sounds like you're doing your best, and as Robin Hood himself supposedly said, no man can do more than that. So even if you don't sound like Steve Perry, Sting or Andrea Bocelli, I think the people working on this project will be appreciative and thankful of the work you've done.

That said, most amateur and semi-pro singers I know have massive insecurities about their singing voices. Often with good reason - the singer is most often the weakest link in the band, to my ears at any rate. But on top of that, singing well is so revealing of the singer - you can hide behind a potted plant and still pump out a great bass groove or guitar lick, but to sing well, you have to believe what you're singing, and project your emotions into the room with your words.

That means you have to reveal *yourself* to your audience, and I think that is the thing that is most unsettling, for me, and for millions of other minimally talented vocalists like myself.

Take heart, though - if you do sing with honesty, chances are many people will like your singing, whether or not you're a great singer. There are lots of very popular singers out there who can't sing very well - Eric Clapton, to name one famous example. He could sing in his youth, but ruined his voice with too many years of alcohol, drugs, and hard living - but his audience apparently either didn't notice, or didn't care, and he's still out there singing, bless his heart.

One other thing - if there's time, you might consider getting some vocal lessons, or even a teach-yourself book on vocal training. Like you, I'm not happy with my singing "ability", so I bought Roger Love's book "Set Your Voice Free" (http://www.amazon.com/Your-Voice-Free-Roger-Love/dp/0316441791) and sang through the vocal exercises on the included CD every day in my car on the way to and from work for months. That daily vocal workout definitely improved both my pitch accuracy and my vocal range, though it didn't change my vocal timbre significantly. Still, the exercises helped me gain the confidence to start singing at local jams and song circles.

-Gnobuddy

Thanks guys! Here's the track for your constructive feedback.

http://soundcloud.com/a-j-howard/evans-song-mix-5-1

First,

As the parent of a kid who it looks like has an autism-related condition (definitive diagnosis pending), I thank you for agreeing to volunteer your time to this cause.

Second, sounds pretty good to me on the computer speakers. Your voice sounds fine to me - in fact, I wish I could sing like that!

Let me have a listen on the "real" speakers, and I'll see if I have any constructive suggestions. Sounds nice to me though.

Cheers,
Geoff

Quick impressions after two (well, make that three) listens:

* The tune is perfect for its destination. The vocal is heartfelt and redeems any deficiency you might perceive in your voice. It sounds pretty dry and thin, though. One thing you might try is:
Duplicate the vocal track, giving you Vocal A and Vocal B (or whatever).
Juice up the reverb on Vocal A, not to where it sounds soupy or sizzly, but just enough to give it some air. Give it plenty of predelay, maybe 30 ms. ... Maybe bump up the "gut" frequencies around 600-800 Hz a tad.
Compress Vocal B pretty harsh, like 20:1 ratio, so every note is being compressed to some extent. Maybe add a taste of high end, but leave it dry (don't send to reverb).
Then blend A and B to where you have a blend that gets through the mix without sounding too out front. Just tinker til it sounds "right." ... When that happens, Vocal B is likely to be substantially lower in gain than Vocal A.


* A little compression on the Tele lead, to where it chops the peaks but doesn't squash the tone, will sweeten it right up.

* To clear up the low end, carve out EQ niches for kick and bass ... roll off (high-pass) the bass at about 80-100 Hz and, conversely, low-pass the kick at 80-100 ... that will get rid of a lot of mud in the bottom.

I think you'll end up with a good tune, because you care enough about it to work at it.

I'll just add: maybe bring down the toms a few dBs and carve out at ~125Hz to tame some of the "boominess".

Also, maybe bring down the left panned guitar solo playing at the same time as the singing starting @ 2:25. I think it overpowers the vocals a bit there.

All in all, good job! Very nice of you to do this.

Quick impressions after two (well, make that three) listens:

* The tune is perfect for its destination. The vocal is heartfelt and redeems any deficiency you might perceive in your voice. It sounds pretty dry and thin, though. One thing you might try is:
Duplicate the vocal track, giving you Vocal A and Vocal B (or whatever).
Juice up the reverb on Vocal A, not to where it sounds soupy or sizzly, but just enough to give it some air. Give it plenty of predelay, maybe 30 ms. ... Maybe bump up the "gut" frequencies around 600-800 Hz a tad.
Compress Vocal B pretty harsh, like 20:1 ratio, so every note is being compressed to some extent. Maybe add a taste of high end, but leave it dry (don't send to reverb).
Then blend A and B to where you have a blend that gets through the mix without sounding too out front. Just tinker til it sounds "right." ... When that happens, Vocal B is likely to be substantially lower in gain than Vocal A.


* A little compression on the Tele lead, to where it chops the peaks but doesn't squash the tone, will sweeten it right up.

* To clear up the low end, carve out EQ niches for kick and bass ... roll off (high-pass) the bass at about 80-100 Hz and, conversely, low-pass the kick at 80-100 ... that will get rid of a lot of mud in the bottom.

I think you'll end up with a good tune, because you care enough about it to work at it.

Thanks Woodman! That is exactly what I'm looking for. Especially advice on mixing the vocal! I will certianly try it. At one time I had 3 "lead vocal" tracks. One center panned & the others about 30% to either side. I had the panned vox pretty heavily effected & the one in the middle pretty dry (an idea I heard about here), but I could never find a sweet spot for the panned vox. They would go from being non-existent, to getting to "chorus-ey." I'm really looking for a pretty in your face vocal sound. Something that really pops & shines. This is my 6th mix & I'm gonna be honest, I slapped a preset on the vocal & it sounded better (to me) than all the processing I had done in the previous 5 mixes.

So, taking into consideration there will be a female harmony vocal on the choruses/bridge, would your advice about the vocal stay the same?

Now, on to the "low end mud." Unfortunately, All I have to work with on the drums is a stereo mixdown of the whole kit. The guy I had do them had six mic's, but did not have the capability to get me the six seperate tracks. The kick is pretty prominent in the mix & according to the visual EQ is all over the 80hz range. Also, the bass guitar is all over the 100hz range. This is right were you're suggesting to cut the frequencies.

I have the drum track & bass track high passed at 32 Hz & nothing low passed. I notched the kick (entire drum track) a little at 100 Hz because that's the range the bass was peaking at.

What say you?

I'll just add: maybe bring down the toms a few dBs and carve out at ~125Hz to tame some of the "boominess".

Also, maybe bring down the left panned guitar solo playing at the same time as the singing starting @ 2:25. I think it overpowers the vocals a bit there.All in all, good job! Very nice of you to do this.

That is something that stuck out to me on this mix as well. Already on the list to do! Also gonna bring up the guitar playing on the intro/first verse just a touch.

Thanks again guys, all the help is appreciated!

Hey man, the song sounds great! Just need to add the vocal harmonies, and double up the lead vocals on the chorus to give it that pro polish. Final mix, and master compression, and you got it.

Just my personal preference, but I don't like too much "delay" on vocals. But that's just personal preferences. Good work brother!

Sorry, Missed a couple of Woodman's questions. I'm using GarageBand. The track will defenitely be mastered (although I'm unsure if I'm going to need to have it done, or if that is going to be provided)

Insecurities r us or sumfin'. Firstly I applaud the sentiment and admire your willingness to do something like this. I doubt there are many here or elsewhere who have ever tried to sing that don't know that.... oh I sound like crap.. feeling. Honestly you're fine. The pitch might wander a smidge here and there but hey... I don't feel qualified to offer the more technical advice as others might, but one thing.

For the vocal OD. Try sitting or standing (whichever is more comfortable) with a Mic set up a little above head height and at a small distance. Say an arms length or two. Then close your eyes run the music, stretch a little and sing it to 'Evan' with that 'serious' look on his face. Project a little to the muse if you will. Might just add a little depth and help with the odd minor swallowing.

Curtseys for your efforts

Kristina

FWIW, I like the recording, and also your voice overall (wish I sounded as good as you!).

In the interest of constructive criticism, your vocal tone gets a little nasal in the higher range, which is something a vocal coach could help you change - it has a lot to do with the way you breathe out when singing (where you direct the air). But it's not bad, and you have a pleasant voice in my opinion. IMO with a little help from a vocal coach you could have a really attractive singing voice.

Still on the vocal, I feel that it has been compressed too much, removing the dynamics completely. Excessively heavy compression is everywhere these days, but my humble opinion is that the song will sound better and have more emotional impact if you let the soft parts stay soft, and the loud parts get a little louder, rather than the virtually constant level you have now. Don't get caught up in those idiotic loudness wars of the last decade or so - let your music breathe a little!

The boomy drums and bass is the other thing that bothered me, but I don't know how to fix it, given the situation you're in. Hopefully one of the experts here will have a helpful suggestion.

One last thing, I did not think the guitar lead was too loud at 2:25 - with the wide panning differences separating vocals and guitar, I think the levels are balanced okay. But personally I try to avoid playing short notes when soloing over vocals - long sustained notes are much less likely to interfere with the vocal line than chunky rhythmic stuff. If it was my recording, I'd be tempted to go back and redo that solo, with a smoother and more single-note approach during the vocals.

Overall, nice job, nice song, and I'd like to lend my voice to the chorus of people thanking you for doing this. It can be a cold and unfeeling world these days, and it's so great that you (and the other people working on this project) care enough about other people to do what you're doing. Thank you!

-Gnobuddy

I'm really looking for a pretty in your face vocal sound. Something that really pops & shines.

The faux-parallel compression gimmick on doubled tracks was invented to do just that (by far better minds than me!). Don't try to spread it out, keep both tracks centered (personal opinion — fair game for debate).

So, taking into consideration there will be a female harmony vocal on the choruses/bridge, would your advice about the vocal stay the same?

Yes indeed, re the lead vocal. But much depends on whether the harmony vox is a "background vocal" or a duet-style harmony — on a duet, you might want to parallel-compress her too. If it's a BGV, probably not.

Now, on to the "low end mud." Unfortunately, All I have to work with on the drums is a stereo mixdown of the whole kit. The guy I had do them had six mic's, but did not have the capability to get me the six seperate tracks.

Dang, that makes it a horse of a different color. ... This:

carve out at ~125Hz to tame some of the "boominess".


That would not only tame the toms, but take some of the drum din out of the bass guitar's range.

The kick is pretty prominent in the mix & according to the visual EQ is all over the 80hz range. Also, the bass guitar is all over the 100hz range. This is right were you're suggesting to cut the frequencies.

Actually, what I was trying to convey is that in an ideal sonic world, the kick should dominate up to 80 Hz and taper off at 100 or a little more, while the bass should take over the 100 to ~200-250 range (high-passing on a rolloff of like 100>80 or so). There's some overlap, which is good, but each can be heard distinctly. You want to keep them out of each others' way.

I have the drum track & bass track high passed at 32 Hz & nothing low passed.

That way you get rid of the rumble, but not the roar. Be vicious in cutting those under-100 lows in *every* track but your kick.

Just my personal preference, but I don't like too much "delay" on vocals.

I hear ya man, I hate that too, when there's such a wash you can't hear the lyrics. All I'm talking about is a little air under that vocal — not echoey, but just enough ambience to float the Nashville boat.

Sorry, Missed a couple of Woodman's questions. I'm using GarageBand. The track will defenitely be mastered (although I'm unsure if I'm going to need to have it done, or if that is going to be provided)

You shouldn't have to master it yourself. On a compilation CD like this, they'll need to even out all the volumes for each tune, a job for a mastering studio. ... And hey, Garageband is god's gift to the musically inclined yet hassle disinclined!

What say you?

I'd say I've given a lot of advice for a guy who don't know jack-*****! I've just recently completed a project of comparable intensity, so I'm all full of myself. I really like that you're hacking through the brambles in pursuit of excellence.

Insecurities r us or sumfin'.
<snip>
I doubt there are many here or elsewhere who have ever tried to sing that don't know that.... oh I sound like crap.. feeling.

Kristina
So true. I'm amazed how many singers I meet who sound good to me, but who hate the sound of their own voice, live or recorded.

And yes, of course I hate the sound of my own voice, live or recorded...:mrgreen:

-Gnobuddy

And yes, of course I hate the sound of my own voice, live or recorded...:mrgreen:
-Gnobuddy

Hahaha! We're all alike!

Love the song man and I love what you have donated your time to... Thank you! Aside from the mix or anything the sing itself touched my heart.

My pet peeve of non-pro recordings is out of tune vocals. Not out of tune in a rugged, ragged, lived-life-hard way, but out of tune as in not aware of it being out of tune and fooling oneself. So, armed with my vow to zero in on this aspect of your song, I thought not bad at all. However, once you hit the higher, louder part, then the pitchyness hit me wrong. But you have a very strong ear and work ethic and can get around that. First, I think that double-tracking might fix the problem right then. Second, there's no reason why you can't do enough takes that you can comp together for the purposes of intonation. Third, depending on your software and experience, you could change the pitch a little when the problems occur. I'd guess that the worst intonation is about 20-30 cents off (not sure if this is up or down). My recommendations are in the order of the solutions I discussed here. I think recommendation 3 is only if you are already used to working with pitch shifting.

Or, leave it alone and ship it off. The problems are not that bad that they sink the song. Having high standards is the greatest tool you can have, and your attitude reflects this.

My pet peeve of non-pro recordings is out of tune vocals. Not out of tune in a rugged, ragged, lived-life-hard way, but out of tune as in not aware of it being out of tune and fooling oneself. So, armed with my vow to zero in on this aspect of your song, I thought not bad at all. However, once you hit the higher, louder part, then the pitchyness hit me wrong. But you have a very strong ear and work ethic and can get around that. First, I think that double-tracking might fix the problem right then. Second, there's no reason why you can't do enough takes that you can comp together for the purposes of intonation. Third, depending on your software and experience, you could change the pitch a little when the problems occur. I'd guess that the worst intonation is about 20-30 cents off (not sure if this is up or down). My recommendations are in the order of the solutions I discussed here. I think recommendation 3 is only if you are already used to working with pitch shifting.

Or, leave it alone and ship it off. The problems are not that bad that they sink the song. Having high standards is the greatest tool you can have, and your attitude reflects this.

The overall concensus is the vox are good, but I hear what you hear Larry. It's pitchy in places & when it happens, it's like jabbing an ice pick into my temple. The pitch correction in GB is crude to say the least. I will probably eventually get Melodyne, but it won't be before this project is finished.

The vocal you're hearing IS comped. It's the best I had out of 10 takes on every single line. Yeah, sad, I know.:sad:

My pet peeve of non-pro recordings is out of tune vocals.
I agree with you on that, and yet lately I find horribly Auto-Tuned "perfectly on pitch" vocals just as unpleasant to listen to. They sound horribly artificial and not very much like a human voice. Here's an extreme example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hshojq6m6dc&feature=relmfu).

Given a choice between a real singer with slightly imperfect pitch, and a fake software-tuned singer perfectly on pitch, I'd personally prefer the former. Heck, a lot of famous singers from the era before Auto-Tune had poor pitch - Johnny Cash, for example, often wandered around somewhere in the general vicinity of his target pitch without ever quite finding it, especially in his lower register. It didn't stop him being a hugely popular and successful entertainer, and it didn't erase his obvious charisma and talent.

Off topic, but the surgically altered "perfect faces" we're seeing everywhere on TV, in films, and in the media lately are equally disturbing and creepy as the "perfect" singing created by heavy-handed use of Auto Tune.

-Gnobuddy

Love the song man and I love what you have donated your time to... Thank you! Aside from the mix or anything the sing itself touched my heart.

Thank you very much!:grin:

The overall concensus is the vox are good, but I hear what you hear Larry.
I heard it too, but believe me, it's not bad at all for a male singer, especially one without professional training. Men generally don't sing as well or as accurately as women.

We've been conditioned to hear artificially perfect pitch, because Auto Tune is everywhere these days. Before the days of this particular fakery, there were plenty of singers who weren't perfectly on pitch, but that didn't stop them from having attractive singing voices and singing good songs. I suggest you head over to You Tube and listen to some Johnny Cash songs - he was a superstar, and I'd say you're more accurately on pitch much of the time than he was.

Another good reference is any of Clapton's "Crossroads" events - I have the DVD's of the 2007, 2008, and 2010 shows. Between them, they feature dozens of male singers, mostly blues singers. Most of them don't sing on pitch, and many don't sing well at all - and yet everybody there is a famous and successful guitarist/musician.

In fact, most of the male vocalists you hear on those DVD's are such bad singers that it's quite striking when you actually hear a really good one. Like Robert Cray, for instance. His singing was a huge breath of fresh air after listening to so many men singing off pitch and without much expression. B.B. King is another man who actually can sing well, and so is Gary Clark Jr.

Here's what I'm trying to say: if your singing was on one of those Crossroads DVD's, you'd be one of the better male singers featured. Honest!

-Gnobuddy

I heard it too, but believe me, it's not bad at all for a male singer, especially one without professional training. Men generally don't sing as well or as accurately as women.

We've been conditioned to hear artificially perfect pitch, because Auto Tune is everywhere these days. Before the days of this particular fakery, there were plenty of singers who weren't perfectly on pitch, but that didn't stop them from having attractive singing voices and singing good songs. I suggest you head over to You Tube and listen to some Johnny Cash songs - he was a superstar, and I'd say you're more accurately on pitch much of the time than he was.

Another good reference is any of Clapton's "Crossroads" events - I have the DVD's of the 2007, 2008, and 2010 shows. Between them, they feature dozens of male singers, mostly blues singers. Most of them don't sing on pitch, and many don't sing well at all - and yet everybody there is a famous and successful guitarist/musician.

In fact, most of the male vocalists you hear on those DVD's are such bad singers that it's quite striking when you actually hear a really good one. Like Robert Cray, for instance. His singing was a huge breath of fresh air after listening to so many men singing off pitch and without much expression. B.B. King is another man who actually can sing well, and so is Gary Clark Jr.

Here's what I'm trying to say: if your singing was on one of those Crossroads DVD's, you'd be one of the better male singers featured. Honest!

-Gnobuddy

Wow, what a great compliment. Thank you. I should really get some coaching, but I live in the sticks:neutral:

Gno, that girl-group clip you posted was creepy — sounded non-human!

I should really get some coaching, but I live in the sticks:neutral:

Recording your voice a lot and identifying your strengths and weaknesses will go a long way ... one of the first things a vocal coach usually stresses is to get your sound more from the gut (diaphragm) than the head/throat. Easy to say, harder to put into action. But practicing your vocal techniques has the same effect as practicing guitar: you eventually get better.

Melodyne is a great tool, but not a magic bullet — I use it to "fix" notes that are blatantly out of tune in an otherwise good take, but trying to correct every note subtracts from your natural vocal flow. More selective tweaking rather than overall processing, best done manually rather than transferring the whole part and telling it to "correct to 95%" or whatever.

You're like me as you're your own worst critic.

I have recorded stuff that people raved about and I thought it was pure crap!

That being said, I would leave it alone for the following reasons.

1. People know that a charity album isn't going to be a high dollar polished piece and I'll bet the rest of the songs aren't high quality enough to reflect on yours.

2. Your song has an emotional raw edge to it that fits not only the song but the project really well. You want to paint a mental picture of a guy sitting next to his sons bed as he sleeps singing to him, not the two of them at the races cheering for Ol Dale! It should sound like what it is. A gift from the heart!

3. You CAN very easily over tweak a song and make a turd out of a rose. I've done it myself enough times to know.

That being said, LEAVE IT ALONE! It sounds fine just like it is!

Wow, what a great compliment. Thank you. I should really get some coaching, but I live in the sticks:neutral:
You're welcome! The compliment was sincere!

Even if vocal lessons are unavailable in your area, you might consider getting something like that Roger Love book/CD I mentioned earlier. Just getting an understanding of the mechanics of the human voice helps, and doing the vocal exercises daily really helps. The CD helps a lot, because you can hear what you're shooting for, and then try to imitate it.

There are music lessons available in my area, and I do get lessons for guitar and (lately) drums. But I still haven't taken any singing lessons myself - what with singing not being one of my strengths, and finding the courage needed to sing in front of a trained professional and be criticised by him/her, I keep putting it off, and putting the money into some other kind of music lessons instead. :oops:

Oh yeah, I think TC6969 may have it right...especially the part about polishing something until you completely ruin it in the process. I've done that too, until I quit in disgust after dozens of attempts to make it better. And by contrast, the best song I've written so far came to me in a few minutes, with no effort. The gods of creativity work on their own terms and will not be coaxed, it seems!

-Gnobuddy

Gno, that girl-group clip you posted was creepy — sounded non-human!

I have the same reaction. It's so unbelievably fake-sounding that it creeps me out. But it's also compelling in a bad-accident-on-the-freeway kind of way. Some weird corner of my brain wants to go back and listen to it again, in order to be shocked and horrified and disgusted one more time! :mrgreen:

Between T-Pain (and Cher, and a legion of tasteless musicans who followed in her footsteps) and now this girl group, could Auto-Tune get any worse?

-Gnobuddy

I have the same reaction. It's so unbelievably fake-sounding that it creeps me out. But it's also compelling in a bad-accident-on-the-freeway kind of way. Some weird corner of my brain wants to go back and listen to it again, in order to be shocked and horrified and disgusted one more time! :mrgreen:


An old mountain man once told me, "Don't never stare at road kill," but sometimes you just can't help it.

You're like me as you're your own worst critic.

I have recorded stuff that people raved about and I thought it was pure crap!

That being said, I would leave it alone for the following reasons.

1. People know that a charity album isn't going to be a high dollar polished piece and I'll bet the rest of the songs aren't high quality enough to reflect on yours.

2. Your song has an emotional raw edge to it that fits not only the song but the project really well. You want to paint a mental picture of a guy sitting next to his sons bed as he sleeps singing to him, not the two of them at the races cheering for Ol Dale! It should sound like what it is. A gift from the heart!

3. You CAN very easily over tweak a song and make a turd out of a rose. I've done it myself enough times to know.

That being said, LEAVE IT ALONE! It sounds fine just like it is!

There's a lot of validity to this idea. Thank you for pointing it out.

You're welcome! The compliment was sincere!

Even if vocal lessons are unavailable in your area, you might consider getting something like that Roger Love book/CD I mentioned earlier. Just getting an understanding of the mechanics of the human voice helps, and doing the vocal exercises daily really helps. The CD helps a lot, because you can hear what you're shooting for, and then try to imitate it.

There are music lessons available in my area, and I do get lessons for guitar and (lately) drums. But I still haven't taken any singing lessons myself - what with singing not being one of my strengths, and finding the courage needed to sing in front of a trained professional and be criticised by him/her, I keep putting it off, and putting the money into some other kind of music lessons instead. :oops:

Oh yeah, I think TC6969 may have it right...especially the part about polishing something until you completely ruin it in the process. I've done that too, until I quit in disgust after dozens of attempts to make it better. And by contrast, the best song I've written so far came to me in a few minutes, with no effort. The gods of creativity work on their own terms and will not be coaxed, it seems!

-Gnobuddy

I checked out the book/cd you linked to. Good info, I'll probably go ahead & buy it. Gotta be worth $1.25!

+1 for TC6969's comments... don't beat yourself up over a good effort...

sounded OK to my mug ears..... good work... for a good cause....

*time may see your song the best on the CD..... in the listeners hearts....(few of whom will be recording engineers)... because the sentiment is there....

Here's an updated track with some of the improvements suggested. Huh, I think it does sound a little better:grin:

http://soundcloud.com/a-j-howard/evans-song-mix-5-2

Major improvements to my ears! Bottom end much more well-defined re kick/bass separation. Vocal sounds stronger and sets well in the mix. Only nitpick is that it's sort of a crowded house in the bridge at about 2:25, with the fills and rhythm competing with the lyrics. Easy fix to back the gits down a dB or two. I think you'll end up with a tune to be proud of!

I had a lot to add. Took a break and see that others have already covered it. Especially Gnobuddy.

Congratulations on the entire effort and for supporting a great cause! Please post a link to the CD when it comes out.

Sounds much better to me as well. Nice job fixing the boomy bass/drums! And you've written quite a catchy song, you know? :smile:

I'm still not a fan of such heavy compression on the vocals or the overall track. It robs the music of a lot of expressiveness and variety. The Soundcloud graphic shows how little dynamic range is left in this song after the compression. IMHO, this is the one area where your earlier mix (5.1) was better than the current one (5.2). There was noticeably more dynamic range in 5.1, and even that version was compressed too heavily IMO.

That said, heavy-handed compression is *everywhere* these days, so your mix will almost certainly fit better with whatever else people are listening to nowadays.

It's fascinating - in the early days of the CD format, producers and recording engineers appreciated the extreme dynamic range that was finally available to them, thanks to the CD's low, low noise floor. The unofficial standard was to have your final recording at around -18 dB, relative to the 0 dB clipping point of the CD. That left plenty of room for peaks, and and still left the noise floor some 88 dB below the signal. Over time that unofficial standard has been eroded, and eroded, and eroded again, to the point where, as Woodman said on another thread, there are now recordings that bounce around in just the top 3 dB or so of that vast 96 dB dynamic range. Loud and inexpressive. What a pity.

-Gnobuddy

I really appreciate all the help guys!

On the compression thing ~ I tend to agree with u gnobody, but u said it. This song will be competing against modern recordings on the album. Also, that's just my "fake mastering." The track I send will have much less compression & the track that gets put on the album could have much more :)

Thanks again to everyone! I will certainly keep everyone updated when the album comes out. It is for a great cause!

Nice job fixing up those bottoms. So good of you to put in all that time and effort for a great cause. Don't know how finished you are but have you considered a vocal harmony in the chorus?

Nice job fixing up those bottoms. So good of you to put in all that time and effort for a great cause. Don't know how finished you are but have you considered a vocal harmony in the chorus?

Yes. I still have to track female vocal harmony & steel guitar. Hopefully sometime this week.

On the compression thing ~ I tend to agree with u gnobody, but u said it. This song will be competing against modern recordings on the album. Also, that's just my "fake mastering." The track I send will have much less compression & the track that gets put on the album could have much more :)


If I were you (and of course I'm not), I'd contact the production folks and verify that the entire album will be mastered for real. If so, you don't have to do much to your output track unless you have a pet comp setting that pertains more to tone than squashing. A lot (but not all) of the Nashville cats use a pretty heavy hand. Louder is better, right?! :mad:

If I were you (and of course I'm not), I'd contact the production folks and verify that the entire album will be mastered for real. If so, you don't have to do much to your output track unless you have a pet comp setting that pertains more to tone than squashing. A lot (but not all) of the Nashville cats use a pretty heavy hand. Louder is better, right?! :mad:

Already on it Woodman :grin: & thanks again for all the great tips!

Got the pedal steel tracking now :)

Sent from my iPhone using TDPRI

I'm having the steel player record the track wet, cause frankly I have no idea what kinds of effects & settings steel players use.

Do you guys use any kind of compression & or eq when mixing steel guitar?

Sent from my iPhone using TDPRI

It sounds great JJ. Good singers are always their own worst critics.

It sounds great JJ. Good singers are always their own worst critics.

Thanks you sir!

Sent from my iPhone using TDPRI

Agree on tracking the steel wet — it's one of those instruments where the amp 'verb is really part of the player's sound. If it's not too juicy, you could add a touch of the aux reverb you're using on everything else to integrate it into the overall sound.

A lot of good suggestions here regarding mixing etc so I won't add to that.

Just want to say that I like your song and your voice. It sounds like a 60's pop song, which to me is a good thing.

Sounds pretty good.

I didn't get a chance to hear the first mix on the real monitors, but the updated one sounds just fine.

The drums are pretty centered though. I know you only have a stereo submix of the drums to work with - how wide are the drums panned? You don't want them super-wide - like the drummer has 9 foot long arms - but to get the tom fill and the cymbals have a little more width perhaps?

As for the vocal - I think it's fine. Not sure what GB has in terms of a vocal spreader/thickener? The basic idea is have a copy of the vocal pitch shifted up and down very slightly (3-5 cents or so) sometimes with a bit of modulation (like a very subtle chorus). And then add to taste under the main vocal. Can work pretty well if not overdone. Not sure if there are any decent GB compatible freebies floating around out there either. But, I think it sounds fine as is. If it's still bugging you - just something to try.

Looking forward to hearing what the steel adds.

Sounding good!

Cheers,
Geoff

Good song. I'm not smart enough to make any comments about the technical stuff but I would listen to it on the radio.

Agree on tracking the steel wet — it's one of those instruments where the amp 'verb is really part of the player's sound. If it's not too juicy, you could add a touch of the aux reverb you're using on everything else to integrate it into the overall sound.

I'm ignorant of what steel players need/prefer with their 'sound' during tracking but (IMO) recording 'wet' is a risky equation.:smile:
To those that have that confidence during tracking and how it will fit in the overall mix....my hat is off to you.
I could never do it.

OP....good luck on the song/project.

Carry on...a creative day to all.

Whats great about this is everything, someone giving up his own time and creative ability plus all those offering such good advice. Hats off to all you guys.
And I like the song as well:cool:

With steel guitar.

http://soundcloud.com/a-j-howard/evans-song-mix-5-3-1

When I commented on your intonation, Gnobuddy felt that out-of-tuness can be desirable at times. Yes, I absolutely agree with that. But when I was just listening to one of my old band recordings from a live gig in 1972, all of the vocals were in tune. These guys were not trained singers at all. Surely, not every note was perfect, yet I did not feel that it was out of tune. It did not jump out at me if it was.

Listening to records from all styles and eras, the singers usually hit the notes with enough accuracy that the out-of-tuness does not jump out. Intonation is just not an issue with almost all of the recorded music I have listened to. Yes, there are special exceptions. However, these don't bother me, as the out-of-tuness seems downplayed, and not grating. I have no problem at all with Johnny Cash and all the other greats who were not always pitch perfect.

However, arrgh, the out-of-tuness in 0:50-1:18 really jumps out at me and makes me cringe. The very worst moment is at 0:56-0:58. I don't know if there is a psycho-acoustic principle that holds that out-tune-ness on high, climactic moments in full voice is worse than softer, lower-pitched, semi-spoken moments, but that is kind of I am thinking.

Maybe a solution is to lower the volume on some of the melodic peaks so that they don't grate as much. I am eager to hear from others whether this passage grates as badly as I feel it, which is pretty bad. I scrunch up my shoulders and wince, seriously. If it even bothers you a little, you should fix it before putting on the CD. Otherwise it could come back to haunt you, something that I have learned several painful times before.

Anyway, if 0:56-0:58 doesn't seem out of place and out of tune, then I guess we're OK.

When I commented on your intonation, Gnobuddy felt that out-of-tuness can be desirable at times. Yes, I absolutely agree with that. But when I was just listening to one of my old band recordings from a live gig in 1972, all of the vocals were in tune. These guys were not trained singers at all. Surely, not every note was perfect, yet I did not feel that it was out of tune. It did not jump out at me if it was.

Listening to records from all styles and eras, the singers usually hit the notes with enough accuracy that the out-of-tuness does not jump out. Intonation is just not an issue with almost all of the recorded music I have listened to. Yes, there are special exceptions. However, these don't bother me, as the out-of-tuness seems downplayed, and not grating. I have no problem at all with Johnny Cash and all the other greats who were not always pitch perfect.

However, arrgh, the out-of-tuness in 0:50-1:18 really jumps out at me and makes me cringe. The very worst moment is at 0:56-0:58. I don't know if there is a psycho-acoustic principle that holds that out-tune-ness on high, climactic moments in full voice is worse than softer, lower-pitched, semi-spoken moments, but that is kind of I am thinking.

Maybe a solution is to lower the volume on some of the melodic peaks so that they don't grate as much. I am eager to hear from others whether this passage grates as badly as I feel it, which is pretty bad. I scrunch up my shoulders and wince, seriously. If it even bothers you a little, you should fix it before putting on the CD. Otherwise it could come back to haunt you, something that I have learned several painful times before.

Anyway, if 0:56-0:58 doesn't seem out of place and out of tune, then I guess we're OK.

Dammit Larry! Gotta go burst my bubble :) I hear what ur saying. Re-tracking vox is my only option as far as that goes. Perhaps a 6 pack & a nice cigar before this time :)

Sent from my iPhone using TDPRI

I'll leave the constructive criticism to the experts. All I can say is that I really liked the song! Very fine job indeed.

Dammit Larry! Gotta go burst my bubble :) I hear what ur saying. Re-tracking vox is my only option as far as that goes. Perhaps a 6 pack & a nice cigar before this time :)

Sent from my iPhone using TDPRI

Sorry, but yeah, it had to be said. I knew that you were a dedicated and solid musician who would deal with this. Had I not thought highly of your skills and the song, I would not have said anything.

For the record, I cannot hit pitches to save my life.

Sorry, but yeah, it had to be said. I knew that you were a dedicated and solid musician who would deal with this. Had I not thought highly of your skills and the song, I would not have said anything.

For the record, I cannot hit pitches to save my life.

It makes me cringe every time I hear it. Couple places just "off." as much MORE work as that means for me, it needs done. Thanks for keeping my feet to the flame Larry.

Sent from my iPhone using TDPRI

I have no technical advice, I can hear and relate to the advice given but I think it sounds good. I would just try and relax as much as possible singing the chorus.
Really great what your doing and I commend you on putting it out there for people to constructively criticize,, I have never posted myself singing because of that "I hate the way I sound" feeling. Great Job. I want to hear it live now,after really listening to it so many times and learning it. Cheers

edit: I don't know if it's because I'm a guitar player but the first solo seem's busy while your still singing, I find myself listening to the guitar and not you singing,, again could be that i'm just tuned to listen to guitar work.

Re-tracking vox is my only option as far as that goes. Perhaps a 6 pack & a nice cigar before this time :)

Why not try a week of daily vocal exercises from that Roger Love book/CD?

The daily practice will make you much more accurate at hitting the correct pitch. You match pitches with the CD dozens of time each time you sing through the vocal exercises, and over time you automatically get better at hitting the correct pitches more accurately.

And very importantly, the book will explain "middle voice", how to find it, and how to use it to hit those high notes without pushing, straining, hurting your throat, and singing flat.

I'm no Steve Perry by a long, long shot, but after three or four months of doing those vocal exercises daily, I wrote a song in which the high note in my vocal line is a G# - the G# on the fourth fret of your high E-string on a guitar in standard tuning. That's G# above high C, for male voice. And I don't sing it falsetto or in head voice, but in middle voice. And yes, I'm male, and yes, I still have my, erm, masculine "equipment" - no castratii here!

Before finding Love's book and doing those exercises, that would have been completely unimaginable to me. I'm pretty sure I could not even reach the "B" string, never mind the G# on the high E string.

As I've said before, I'm a completely talentless vocalist, and I'm sure plenty of good tenor singers would not be the least bit impressed by my being able to hit that G# above high C. But for me, it was a huge improvement.

That book and CD really is good!

-Gnobuddy

P.S. Smoking is very bad for your singing voice, not to mention your lung capacity. (Not to mention your health!) The six-pack and cigar might help you not notice if your singing is bad, but they certainly won't help you sing any better.

But you knew all that, right? :mrgreen:

"-Gnobuddy

P.S. Smoking is very bad for your singing voice, not to mention your lung capacity. (Not to mention your health!) The six-pack and cigar might help you not notice if your singing is bad, but they certainly won't help you sing any better.

But you knew all that, right?"

I don't smoke. Not even cigars regularly. Been a few years since I had one, but a good cigar (I mean a really good cigar) is very relaxing. Alas, there ain't no good place around here to get one if i wanted it. I was just relating that I could probably take it a little "less serious," kick back & let it rip. You're right about the practicing stuff. The book is on my christmas list. Wow G#! That's up there man. Good stuff.