Taylor Swift's Vocal

[nathanlee0921]

I have been editing my own vocals and I downloaded a few A Cappella of other artists to see how it look in AutoTune (I do this to compare my vocals to theirs). All the artists (Shantel Nichole Grace, Tim McGraw, etc.), except for Taylor Swift, have "lots of" pitch modulation in their Vocals (which is normal). In Taylor Swift's song, "Love Story", the pitch was dead on in the "Verses" (download it for yourself and see). I mean, it was dead on the "center line".

I know this is a result of Auto-Tune/Melodyne, but who can use it that good? What impressed me is the producer was able to get the pitch dead on without any artifacts. I know Taylor Swift can sing in-tune (been to her concert), but this was without much pitch modulation in the vocals and still have emotion.

I guess it's because of the words she's singing. There was a couple of words where there was more pitch modulation, such as "On" from the phrase, "On the balcony in summer air". You can't really say/sing the word "On" without any modulation or else it'll sound weird.

I'm new to recording and editing vocals, so I don't know what is exceptionable and what's not. Can anyone (with more experience) offer me an opinion on vocal editing. Does the vocal have to be dead on all the time? On some particular words, I can't nail the pitch dead on, but have to slide up to it (words like "world" because it's "w-orld"). I've seen this in the vocal of Shantel Nichole Grace and Tim McGraw.

[kk@jamsync.com]

I'll take a passionate performance over perfect pitch any day.

[minister]

The Beatles sold a rekkid or two, and those vocals are far from "in tune". But the blend seemed to please a few people. I think Johnny Cash did alright for himself. Sometimes, I have no idea what note he is singing. Willie Nelson sold a couple of records, despite bearing a strange relationship to a perfect pitch and being sometimes more than a little behind the beat.

Stop looking at the numbers. How does it feel as music?

If you want an education about what is a well edited vocal, listen to records from the 40's, 50's, 60's, and on through to today. Listen to records where the artist edited themselves in the performance. Once you have a body of this kind of listening experience, then you have some inner guidelines for what feels "right".

[Etch-A-Sketch]

this thread might be better served in one of the music forums instead of post production. Although I'm sure most of the post people here have had lots of experience with music production as well as post.

Having seen Taylor live a few times. I can tell you she literally cannot sing. She has almost no sense of pitch. Now she lip syncs her live shows (on TV and in concert, so I've heard) because so many people have made comments and given her bad reviews.

I think her producer(s) deserves every award she gets, because I'm sure (s)he spent weeks with her, making her redo every word of every song until (s)he got something clean enough to pitch shift without extremely noticeable artifacts.

If the singer can sing it close... melodyne can do a really great job of transparently locking in the pitch (especially if you use the pitch drift tool). The farther away from the correct pitch the singer is, the more artifacts you hear.

Also, if you haven't tried this already... try doing a song at 96KHz/24bit. You'll notice the pitch correction artifacts are less noticeable. They are still there, but are somewhat harder to casually hear.

[Etch-A-Sketch]

Originally Posted by minister

The Beatles sold a rekkid or two, and those vocals are far from "in tune". But the blend seemed to please a few people. I think Johnny Cash did alright for himself. Sometimes, I have no idea what note he is singing. Willie Nelson sold a couple of records, despite bearing a strange relationship to a perfect pitch and being sometimes more than a little behind the beat.

Very true. And I have the utmost respect for those artists. But the listening consumer evolves with the times. And it's why the Beatles, Cash and Nelson don't sell records like they used to. It's why the covers of old songs by Tween artists sell more today than the originals do. Ask a large group of 15 year old kids to listen to Willie or Johnny and see what they say about it... Even if one kid likes it, most will undoubtedly comment on the poor vocal performances.

In the 80's and 90's people started using Eventide harmonizers to pitch correct vocals. The listening public started to become acclimated to it. Now we have Melodyne and Autotune. Consumers are now conditioned to perfectly intonated vocals. They can hear intonation problems even though they can't identify them as such, and they gravitate towards in-tune vocals over out of tune vocals.

There is no going back to the way things were...there is only forward to the way things will be.

[nathanlee0921]

Originally Posted by minister

The Beatles sold a rekkid or two, and those vocals are far from "in tune". But the blend seemed to please a few people. I think Johnny Cash did alright for himself. Sometimes, I have no idea what note he is singing. Willie Nelson sold a couple of records, despite bearing a strange relationship to a perfect pitch and being sometimes more than a little behind the beat.

Stop looking at the numbers. How does it feel as music?

If you want an education about what is a well edited vocal, listen to records from the 40's, 50's, 60's, and on through to today. Listen to records where the artist edited themselves in the performance. Once you have a body of this kind of listening experience, then you have some inner guidelines for what feels "right".

Thanks for replying to my thread, but what do you mean when you say, "But the blend seemed to please a few people".

[nathanlee0921]

Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch

I think her producer(s) deserves every award she gets, because I'm sure (s)he spent weeks with her, making her redo every word of every song until (s)he got something clean enough to pitch shift without extremely noticeable artifacts.

I can get it on pitch too if I sing words by words or punch in a times throughout the phrase. I never thought about this, but maybe I'm good enough not to use AutoTune/Melodyne. When I listen back to a song I just record, I'll just pick the best parts. I'll go as far as doing it word by word, but that's still better than AutoTune/Melodyne.

Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch

Also, if you haven't tried this already... try doing a song at 96KHz/24bit. You'll notice the pitch correction artifacts are less noticeable. They are still there, but are somewhat harder to casually hear.

I will try this. Thanks for the advice.

[nathanlee0921]

Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch

Very true. And I have the utmost respect for those artists. But the listening consumer evolves with the times. And it's why the Beatles, Cash and Nelson don't sell records like they used to. It's why the covers of old songs by Tween artists sell more today than the originals do. Ask a large group of 15 year old kids to listen to Willie or Johnny and see what they say about it... Even if one kid likes it, most will undoubtedly comment on the poor vocal performances.

I understand and would rather have perfect intonation, but without the artifacts. It's easy to tell when a vocal have been pitch shifted. That's why I hate the radio. I used to listen to R&B/Hip-Hop, but it's sound so dumb now that I switch to country and rock (all the country/rock songs I've listened to don't have the electronic effect).

What I'm trying to say is the producer have found a way to achieve better intonation, but created a new problem. The problem they created is the noticeable artifacts and lack of feelings. I rather have perfect intonation, but I want the realness of the performance as well. Maybe in the near future software will be advanced enough to do that.

[RScott]

Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch

Very true. And I have the utmost respect for those artists. But the listening consumer evolves with the times. And it's why the Beatles, Cash and Nelson don't sell records like they used to. It's why the covers of old songs by Tween artists sell more today than the originals do. Ask a large group of 15 year old kids to listen to Willie or Johnny and see what they say about it... Even if one kid likes it, most will undoubtedly comment on the poor vocal performances.

In the 80's and 90's people started using Eventide harmonizers to pitch correct vocals. The listening public started to become acclimated to it. Now we have Melodyne and Autotune. Consumers are now conditioned to perfectly intonated vocals. They can hear intonation problems even though they can't identify them as such, and they gravitate towards in-tune vocals over out of tune vocals.

There is no going back to the way things were...there is only forward to the way things will be.

IMO, People buy what they relate to. Audiences relate to current trends and current stars, especially younger listeners. If they are buying a cover, I think it would have more to do with the cover being in a style they prefer and by an artist who represents the trends they enjoy. I don't think that the technical pitch flawlessness is the one driving factor, though it may contribute a small amount.

Just look at hip hop. The performers can hardly carry a tune in a bucket even with auto-tune, the musicality is often (though not always) terrible and copy-paste for the entire song. But audiences buy the records because the artists represent the lifestyles, trends, and sounds that they respond to. If audiences had a disdain for singing imperfections, hip-hop would be in big trouble!

If a current pop star did a cover of a past song in the same technical conditions of the original -- having the same mics, same pitch tendencies, same degree of production, I would think you'd still have just as big a difference in sales, because a current performer is more relevant in the minds of many audiences.

[Denny McNerney]

Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch

Very true. And I have the utmost respect for those artists. But the listening consumer evolves with the times. And it's why the Beatles, Cash and Nelson don't sell records like they used to. It's why the covers of old songs by Tween artists sell more today than the originals do. Ask a large group of 15 year old kids to listen to Willie or Johnny and see what they say about it... Even if one kid likes it, most will undoubtedly comment on the poor vocal performances.

In the 80's and 90's people started using Eventide harmonizers to pitch correct vocals. The listening public started to become acclimated to it. Now we have Melodyne and Autotune. Consumers are now conditioned to perfectly intonated vocals. They can hear intonation problems even though they can't identify them as such, and they gravitate towards in-tune vocals over out of tune vocals.

There is no going back to the way things were...there is only forward to the way things will be.

No, the reason the covers sell more now is because they are done by the soup du jours... the swifts, the biebers, and the lady gaga's...
celebrities, not musicians...

do you honestly believe that consumers today can hear intonation problems????
or that has any consequence on what they buy???

<<Even if one kid likes it, most will undoubtedly comment on the poor vocal performances. >>

isn't the new kanye west cd #1 on the billboard charts right now?

Isn't it possible to have spent alot of time comping vocals? Considering how well her first album did, they probarbly gave her a bigger budget to create that pop thing she did.

Listening to the track now, it certainly doesn't sound particularly natural. Perhaps her vocals got the Mutt Lange treatment, where each individual sylabble is tuned well enough in order that when put back together it sounds natural.

[Etch-A-Sketch]

Originally Posted by Denny McNerney

isn't the new kanye west cd #1 on the billboard charts right now?

Have you heard Kanye? He uses pitch correction more than Taylor! Proving my point...

[Etch-A-Sketch]

Originally Posted by RScott

Just look at hip hop. The performers can hardly carry a tune in a bucket even with auto-tune, the musicality is often (though not always) terrible and copy-paste for the entire song.

Musicality has nothing to do with intonation. Hiphop is pitch-corrected like crazy today and it sells like hotcakes. Proving my point.

Originally Posted by RScott

But audiences buy the records because the artists represent the lifestyles, trends, and sounds that they respond to.

Yes but before someone like Taylor Swift was TAYLOR SWIFT, she was just some unknown girl with a song on the radio. Same thing with Bieber. If they had intonation problems in the beginning, people wouldn't have been drawn to the songs like they were... and they would not have become the big stars that they are.

People buy the albums because of the music FIRST. The lifestyle, trends, fashion that then get associated with the artist come AFTER they've sold a ton of records.

Originally Posted by RScott

If a current pop star did a cover of a past song in the same technical conditions of the original -- having the same mics, same pitch tendencies, same degree of production, I would think you'd still have just as big a difference in sales, because a current performer is more relevant in the minds of many audiences.

But, the newer production techniques, pitch correction, etc are what make current performers relevant to their audience. Take that away, and it is no longer appealing to their current audience.

It's why the kids that buy something like a taylor swift album don't like the dance remixes DJs do of the album. And it's why the club goers that like the dance remixes don't like the original.

[minister]

Originally Posted by nathanlee0921

Thanks for replying to my thread, but what do you mean when you say, "But the blend seemed to please a few people".

Sure.

When I saw "a few people" I am being ironic. Many many millions of people love their sound. What I mean is, theirs, and many other groups vocals may be technically slightly out of tune, the blend is pleasing. The voices sound great together.

"pitch" and being "in tune" is a relative thing. The first time it struck home to me was in college theory class when they brought in different pianos with different temperaments. The Professor played excerpts of The Well Tempered Clavier on each of the different pianos. Each piece sounded different, and some were intended for certain temperaments.

I am not sure it is "natural" to "hit the numbers" dead on. But it is a style now. And I do not believe that the average consumer can hear that these vocals are more "in tune" and therefore "better". It is more about the style, a phase in taste, a vogue than any technical aspect or inexorable march towards technical perfection. I have lots of nieces and nephews who have varying tastes, only 2 of them have any musical acumen. They like everything from Zeppelin to The Jonas Bros.

All this said, there are definitely better ways to use the tools available to you. You will learn some of those techniques. But it all comes down to your ear to judge when it is "right" (or, the client, he he...). I encourage you to educate your ear. Nothing happens without context.

[nathanlee0921]

Originally Posted by RScott

If a current pop star did a cover of a past song in the same technical conditions of the original -- having the same mics, same pitch tendencies, same degree of production, I would think you'd still have just as big a difference in sales, because a current performer is more relevant in the minds of many audiences.

This is true for me and for everyone. The current is always better that's why only "new songs" top the chart. There are songs that I like in the past that I don't listen to anymore because they're outdated.

[nathanlee0921]

Originally Posted by Denny McNerney

Do you honestly believe that consumers today can hear intonation problems???? Or that has any consequence on what they buy???

What great point you have. Unless I have the sheet music in front of me and play through every notes on my keyboard to check the intonation, there's no way that I can tell if something is in tune or not.

People don't know if the tune of a "new song" is wrong or right from listening. If someone sing "Jingle Bell" out of tune I can tell because I know how it's suppose to sound like, but with a new song I have no reference.

[Denny McNerney]

Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch

Have you heard Kanye? He uses pitch correction more than Taylor! Proving my point...

you're missing my point.

you said that audiences today are more discriminating about vocal performances and intonation than ever...

i don't think so.
they buy records from "celebrities" who can't sing a damn note...

[Denny McNerney]

Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch

People buy the albums because of the music FIRST.

have you heard kanye west?

[Denny McNerney]

Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch

Yes but before someone like Taylor Swift was TAYLOR SWIFT, she was just some unknown girl with a song on the radio. Same thing with Bieber. If they had intonation problems in the beginning, people wouldn't have been drawn to the songs like they were... and they would not have become the big stars that they are.

wow.

i guess that's what killed dylan's career...
and the red hot chili peppers...

[deejfro]

Taylor swift is notorious for being all over the place with her pitch.

Not debating what the mass population hears or cares about.

Calling a spade a spade. She's not a great singer. songwriter, yada yada i know...

[Etch-A-Sketch]

Originally Posted by Denny McNerney

wow.

i guess that's what killed dylan's career...
and the red hot chili peppers...

Different era. different consumers. Again, There is no going back to the way things were...there is only forward to the way things will be.

[Etch-A-Sketch]

Originally Posted by Denny McNerney

you're missing my point.

you said that audiences today are more discriminating about vocal performances and intonation than ever...

i don't think so.
they buy records from "celebrities" who can't sing a damn note...

"they buy records from "celebrities" who can't sing a damn note...BUT ARE EDITED AND INTONATED so that they appear to be in rhythm and tune on their albums"

For anyone who has never tried this. Take a project you are working on, preferably with a singer that doesn't have very good pitch/intonation.

before fixing the pitch play it for as many people as you can. Get their reaction. Preferably get the reaction of older kids and teens if you can.

Then go back and pitch correct the heck out it and fix any rhythmic mistakes. Wait a few weeks. Then play the same song for the same people and see what their reaction is. I've done this a lot.

While people cannot discern that pitch is the issue. they can still tell you it sounds bad even though they don't know why. Fixing the pitch instantly makes it "good". Even though they can't tell you what you changed to make it sound better.

Try it... you'll be very surprised.

[qubi]

Originally Posted by minister

The Beatles sold a rekkid or two, and those vocals are far from "in tune". But the blend seemed to please a few people. I think Johnny Cash did alright for himself. Sometimes, I have no idea what note he is singing. Willie Nelson sold a couple of records, despite bearing a strange relationship to a perfect pitch and being sometimes more than a little behind the beat.

I hear this kinda comment alot on this forum, and I really think its a generational thing.. I'm not really a beatles guy, more the stones (worse pitch), but i really wonder if those guys were to try to compete in todays market, where would they stand?? I would bet that they'd be autotuned too.. As mentioned in some earlier posts, its what the market (today) has become accustomed to, and sadly its perfect pitch (or on the fringe, a totally imperfect indie sound, emotive, but annoyingly and deliberately out of pitch ).. but there doesn't seem to be much room in between (um, where real music lives). Sad? yes, Reality? yes... And since as produces and engineers, we have to deal with it some how if we want to make a living (although feel free to do what you want on your personal passion projects:ie. no pay).

point? no point really.. As to the OP, I agree, someone like Taylor S, who I think doesn't sound that good live (caught her on SNL), is meticulously edited, and I admire the patience and work that has gone into that process.. When I hear her (as I have to 'cause my daughter loves her), I know there's some tuning going on, but for the life of me, I can't always pinpoint the telltale A/T artifacts I'm used to hearing.. And then again, maybe they just locked her in a studio for a week and made her repeat each line till she got it right. At least that would make me feel better about why my vocal tuning abilities aren't as good as her producer's are

[Denny McNerney]

Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch

Again, There is no going back to the way things were...there is only forward to the way things will be.

maybe that's one of the reasons i'm so depressed...

corporations creating adulation, fame, and riches to "celebrities" who deserve none of it...

aren't there enough real artists out there that deserve that?

[ggegan]

The problem with pitch correction is that it creates unrealistic expectations that can't be reproduced in live performances. Witness Swift's performances on a few recent award shows. Some of my favorite bands over the years left me feeling seriously disappointed after hearing them live because they couldn't reproduce the sound I expected to hear. That being said, I am not so much interested in perfection as I am in truth in advertising. I want the real thing.

I readily admit that I come from an older generation of listeners. To me, feel and great poetry in lyrics trump everything else. A great melody is also of primary importance. Being perfectly in tune is nice, but not mandatory. Sometimes it even distances me a bit from the emotion of the piece. Sometimes part of the poetry lies in the imperfections.

Bringing this into the world of post production, so many times I have found that flawed temp mixes had a level of heart and spontaneity that the final mix lacked. You can clean things up to the point where they lose their essence. In the quest for technical perfection, sometimes we sacrifice something more compelling on a primal and visceral level.

[vintagelove]

I'm pretty sure they gave her a record deal because she is hot, not because she can sing.

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by nathanlee0921

I have been editing my own vocals and I downloaded a few A Cappella of other artists to see how it look in AutoTune (I do this to compare my vocals to theirs). All the artists (Shantel Nichole Grace, Tim McGraw, etc.), except for Taylor Swift, have "lots of" pitch modulation in their Vocals (which is normal). In Taylor Swift's song, "Love Story", the pitch was dead on in the "Verses" (download it for yourself and see). I mean, it was dead on the "center line".

I know this is a result of Auto-Tune/Melodyne, but who can use it that good? What impressed me is the producer was able to get the pitch dead on without any artifacts. I know Taylor Swift can sing in-tune (been to her concert), but this was without much pitch modulation in the vocals and still have emotion.

I guess it's because of the words she's singing. There was a couple of words where there was more pitch modulation, such as "On" from the phrase, "On the balcony in summer air". You can't really say/sing the word "On" without any modulation or else it'll sound weird.

I'm new to recording and editing vocals, so I don't know what is exceptionable and what's not. Can anyone (with more experience) offer me an opinion on vocal editing. Does the vocal have to be dead on all the time? On some particular words, I can't nail the pitch dead on, but have to slide up to it (words like "world" because it's "w-orld"). I've seen this in the vocal of Shantel Nichole Grace and Tim McGraw.

I have never seen Taylor Swift perform live on TV where she sang on key.

That said, I have done a ton of vocals with AT where you just don't really hear it. If the singer is pretty close you can often really do a great job with very little effort, except for some problem spots where there is glide up to a note or some kind of vibrato that AT doesn't like (sometimes checking "ignore vibrato" doesn't always help).

TH

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by charlesaustin

I'm pretty sure they gave her a record deal because she is hot, not because she can sing.

Man I think she looks like one of the munchkins, way far from hot

TH

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by qubi

I hear this kinda comment alot on this forum, and I really think its a generational thing.. I'm not really a beatles guy, more the stones (worse pitch), but i really wonder if those guys were to try to compete in todays market, where would they stand?? I would bet that they'd be autotuned too.. As mentioned in some earlier posts, its what the market (today) has become accustomed to, and sadly its perfect pitch (or on the fringe, a totally imperfect indie sound, emotive, but annoyingly and deliberately out of pitch ).. but there doesn't seem to be much room in between (um, where real music lives). Sad? yes, Reality? yes... And since as produces and engineers, we have to deal with it some how if we want to make a living (although feel free to do what you want on your personal passion projects:ie. no pay).

point? no point really.. As to the OP, I agree, someone like Taylor S, who I think doesn't sound that good live (caught her on SNL), is meticulously edited, and I admire the patience and work that has gone into that process.. When I hear her (as I have to 'cause my daughter loves her), I know there's some tuning going on, but for the life of me, I can't always pinpoint the telltale A/T artifacts I'm used to hearing.. And then again, maybe they just locked her in a studio for a week and made her repeat each line till she got it right. At least that would make me feel better about why my vocal tuning abilities aren't as good as her producer's are

Yeah, you know, it's just a by product of DAWS.

The more control that became possible, the more that was used. So now, every drum beat is right on, every guitar is PERFECTLY IN TUNE (thanks digital tuners) , every bass guitar note is with the kick. So naturally now all the vocals are EXACTLY TOGETHER in the harmonies, and of course, tuned. So everything is perfect.

It's really impressive in it's on way, and makes listening to your favorite songs from the Sixties a revelation (both good and bad!). But that's what the modern ears expect now.

TH

[vintagelove]

Well, if you had to look at her, or listen to her...... I know what I would choose...

Originally Posted by oceantracks

Man I think she looks like one of the munchkins, way far from hot

TH