In the decades before Auto-Tune, could

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maxirad said:
…a producer “fix” the voice of a half-bad singer?
Click to expand...
I only got involved peripherally, but to the best of my knowledge, the only available options were “tone control” manipulation (equalization), compression/expansion, clipping/limiting, flanging (subtle speed manipulation), echo/reverb. None of those are really “auto tune”.

Perhaps someone closer to the recording industry can chime in if I’ve forgotten something.

Blessings,
Stephie
 
Not as well as producers today. The methods the poster listed out are still used today, maybe even more than autotune itself

It’s harder for a bad singer to be famous back then, too. So while voices may be altered, it’s not usually done to make them sound as if they had more talent
 
Right. Because when singers took their show on the road, there was not all that equipment available for them to fake it on the fly.
Either you really had talent, or you never ever toured.
Singers really cranked out a living in the day…they played many gigs annually, and someone with no chops just didn’t survive.

Unlike today, sadly.
 
pianistclare said:
Right. Because when singers took their show on the road, there was not all that equipment available for them to fake it on the fly.
Either you really had talent, or you never ever toured.
Singers really cranked out a living in the day…they played many gigs annually, and someone with no chops just didn’t survive.

Unlike today, sadly.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I don’t mind mediocre singers. Music is more than vocals nowadays, singers are there to entertain. These days, it could be choreography, the beat (which is why EDM is popular), etc. So if a singer who can’t sing that well, or at least mediocre, can put good music that people like, she/he is deserving of a career, unlike bad singers in the past. (Imo)

Of course it’s really, really annoying when these singers try to belt live…like yeesh, stick to your limited vocal range at least. Or lip sync it 🤷
 
I read an article a few years ago about the evils of Auto-Tune and how things worked back in the “good old days.” The article talked about how one of the main options in years past to try to salvage a song recorded by a less than stellar star was to up the volume of the backup singers and instruments. I forget who they gave as an example but I believe it was an actress who felt she could put out a hit single. By the time they were done mixing the song you could barely hear the actress over the backup singers.
 
Every concert I have ever been two with the exception of two, the vocals were noticeably worse than the “finished” track.

The two exceptions. Pink martini. And Garth brooks.

But to be fair it isn’t like Garth had an angelic voice. China Forbes from pink martini however was just as advertised.
Someday I want to see if Adel can be the third on that list. Buble was close… Real close.

The 90s however were defined by horrific voices that needed no manipulation because the point was to be horrid. Mark McGrath, Cobain, blink 182. Etc.

Oh let’s not forget the gals. Here is a special shout out to Courtney love!

The 90s had some gems though. Tori Amos, Celene Dion, Houston, Mariah Carey.

Drawing a blank on good men’s voices in that time though.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Every concert I have ever been two with the exception of two, the vocals were noticeably worse than the “finished” track.
Click to expand...
I can’t think of too many I’ve seen in person who were worse than the studio tracks. Most of them sound different, but that’s kind of the point of seeing a band live–you’re getting a live performance as opposed to a polished, studio performance. The only acts I’ve seen who were actually worse than the studio tracks were artists quite a bit past their prime whose voices just haven’t held up, but I didn’t really hold that against them. I’ve seen a few acts who were actually much better live, even if they didn’t sound exactly like the album. A good example is the Who. This was back before Entwistle died and Roger Daltrey’s vocals were still top notch. To say they were awesome is a bit of an understatement.
 
Gordon_Sims said:
I can’t think of too many I’ve seen in person who were worse than the studio tracks. Most of them sound different, but that’s kind of the point of seeing a band live–you’re getting a live performance as opposed to a polished, studio performance. The only acts I’ve seen who were actually worse than the studio tracks were artists quite a bit past their prime whose voices just haven’t held up, but I didn’t really hold that against them. I’ve seen a few acts who were actually much better live, even if they didn’t sound exactly like the album. A good example is the Who. This was back before Entwistle died and Roger Daltrey’s vocals were still top notch. To say they were awesome is a bit of an understatement.
Click to expand...
Yup. In the studio, the whole song is not recorded in one go. The singer sings a few lines. Stops. Repeat and repeat until it’s perfect, sings the chorus once, and they’ll use the same clip for the 2nd chorus, stuff like that. Live performances however, they have to sing the song and if they mess up, too bad, they have to keep going. Plus the nerves (they are not in their safe space aka the studio, where nobody will judge your slip ups) and especially in today’s music, choreography will cause the singer to sound different

Which is why I don’t place value in vocals as much as others. Some singers cannot belt out but they sound lovely during slower songs, some simply cannot sing as well in front of others but they know how to make good, catchy songs 🙂 at the end of the day, it’s how well they entertain their target audience
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top