Bwian McCarty wrote:

> X-Complaints-To: (E-Mail Removed)

> Those amateurs on You Tube don't give blowjobs. That's how you make it in
> the music industry. Blowjobs.

Which explains why Brian is a failure both in the music industry and in
life. He just cannot accept a good blowjob. Hence, he spends his
so-called life imposturing on Usenet as someone else, someone he
obviously envies greatly.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/hsadharma

I thought it was the GIVING of blowjobs that assured success. If it's
the GETTING of blowjobs that assures success then I should have BEEN
somebody by now!

On Mar 4, 1:15 pm, walki...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote:

> Which explains why Brian is a failure both in the music industry and in
> life. He just cannot accept a good blowjob. Hence, he spends his
> so-called life imposturing on Usenet as someone else, someone he
> obviously envies greatly.

"geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> Mark wrote:
>> We routinly use compressors to improve dynamics after the fact without
>> mentioning it. That is a simlar situation ...but not exactly the
>> same.....
>
> That's somewhat different - that is more often than not simply
> manipulating an otherwise competent vocal to fit in well with other
> musical parts that may not be sympathetically-played, rather than covering
> up a basic vocal inability (with exceptions !).

I remember a time when control of dynamics was just as important as control
of intonation, and of the tone itself. Not just for singers, for all the
instruments.

There's many reasons why dynamics don't have the importance they once did,
but when you find a singer who really does know how to use them it's like
magic.

Sean

On Mar 4, 7:46*am, Mike Rivers <mriv...@d-and-d.com> wrote:

> Because nobody cares about undiscovered artists on YouTube except a
> small number of people who aren't spending any money. It's a business.
> You have to package and market the product in order to sell it. That's what
> record labels do.


The point being, why package and market lesser talents when there are
better talents to be found? All performers are undiscovered at some
point. If there exists this highly refined, sophisticated recording
technology - why not record quality to begin with instead of having to
massage and manipulate someone's output to fool the public?

Not to say there aren't good singers who've become popular - certainly
there are, but there's so much talent out there that there doesn't
seem to be any rational reason to ever go with 2nd and 3rd stringers.

On Mar 1, 11:06*pm, Laurence Payne <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:44:21 +1300, "geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >> Had a project with a pretty good teenage female singer. *We did a
> >> bunch of passes and spent some time comping and tuning a note here and
> >> there. *Then we got to talking about what they do on the radio these
> >> days so, just for fun, I turned Autotune on "stun". *The teenager
> >> yelled "That's IT!!! You have to do that! *No one my age will even
> >> LISTEN to it the other way!". *Me and my bright ideas.
>
> >Scary eh ?
>
> >What aboiut the ones who actually sing with an Autotune inflection *(that
> >monotone and slightly nasal honky whine) ?!
>
> Auto tune can't be THAT much worse than Melodyne? *I've been through
> vocal tracks with M, manually shifting almost every note, sometimes by
> quite a few semitones. *The results are remarkably good, with no
> discernable artifacts.
>
> I've never found any use for an auto setting. *Perhaps that's where
> you're going wrong?

You lucky people.
Recently I worked with "one" who could not sing, could not play
guitar, but wanted it so badly.
Oddly enough there was that nasal thing Geoff mentioned, only
dyslexic.
It spelled outAtune.
The other point, I think there wasn't much delusion (propably less
than I have about my recrding
skills). It was part of a master plan. After every single word cut out
and tuned, every single guitar
sound cut out and moved, many takes combined ....
"...people told me they're surprised not to hear me sing false and
make
mistakes".
Guess they did not hear the voice was almost if different person sang,
either.
Must have credited it to "Studio Sound"

V.

On Mar 2, 2:56*pm, Mike Rivers <mriv...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
> >> Auto tune can't be THAT much worse than Melodyne? *I've been through
> >> vocal tracks with M, manually shifting almost every note, sometimes by
> >> quite a few semitones.
>
> > Quite a few semitones? *Like changing an A to a F?
>
> If you don't like the melody or harmony, you can rearrange it - as long
> * as you aren't too
> fussy about what the actual voice sounds like.

But if someone is fussy, you get this kind of dialog:

Rec: Hey, let's go again. This was from wrong key. Try to sing same
intervals, starting from "this" note.
Play: Yes, but than it's to high. I want "deeper" vocal sound to my
song.
Rec: Well, lets transpose the song. Play guitar from "this" chord.
Play: No, I can not. I'll have to play open chord than. I don't like
openchord sound. I like barr chord sound.
R: You don't have o play open. You have that one as bar chord all over
the neck.
P: Yes, but that bar is too "high". I want this song in "down" mood.
R: Could you try not to hit those high strings while playing bar
chord.
P: No, chord does not ring enough that way.
R: O.K. than. recording is over. I'll fix it all in the mix. You'll be
in tune and voice will remain deep, and you
won't notice it anyway.
P: Pardon, what did you say.
R: Nothing, nice weather outside. I'll call you after rough is done,
so we can proceede.
P: Yes. Please send me mp3, or MIDI on mail.
R: MIDI is, ..
P: What?
R: Nice weather ...

V.

brassplyer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Mar 4, 7:46 am, Mike Rivers <mriv...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
> > Because nobody cares about undiscovered artists on YouTube except a
> > small number of people who aren't spending any money. It's a business.
> > You have to package and market the product in order to sell it. That's what
> > record labels do.
>
>
> The point being, why package and market lesser talents when there are
> better talents to be found?

Because today it is not about talent to the same extent it is about
marketing. We just saw a woman who apparently cannot sing even one note
in tune win craploads of awards at the Gwammie$. She is an actress,
essentially, who gets credit for writing crappy but successful songs
that she probably didn't write. This is about the illusion of talent,
not the real thing.

> All performers are undiscovered at some
> point.

Very many of the flock of young female stars of the last decade came up
through TV shows (MouseCatEars, etc.), or had industry connections, like
being Billy Ray Cyrus's daughter, and so forth. Contemporary A&R, to the
extent it exists at all (not much), is not out there looking for
excellent singing. It's looking for a pretty face that wants it so badly
it will sign the contract.

> If there exists this highly refined, sophisticated recording
> technology - why not record quality to begin with instead of having to
> massage and manipulate someone's output to fool the public?
>
> Not to say there aren't good singers who've become popular - certainly
> there are, but there's so much talent out there that there doesn't
> seem to be any rational reason to ever go with 2nd and 3rd stringers.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/hsadharma

brassplyer wrote:

> The point being, why package and market lesser talents when there are
> better talents to be found? All performers are undiscovered at some
> point.

Yes, but now there are far too many undiscovered talents. The ones
who get discovered are the ones who have marketing talent and are
willing to spend money selling themselves to people who will spend
money on them.

Someone with a family and a good day job can be a recording artist, too,
with a few spare hours a week and a few hundred bucks worth of gear, and
can have a lot of fun doing it. But he isn't going to hawk his CDs three
nights a week at the local coffee house or bar, or set up a tour of house
concerts, or hire a publicist with good connections to get him a listen by
a record label executive, or pay-to-play at a showcase like SXSW where
there actually are people with money looking for talent to promote.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson

Luxey wrote:

> Recently I worked with "one" who could not sing, could not play
> guitar, but wanted it so badly.

And apparently you wanted the money (or fame??) so badly that
you were willing to work with this person. I've stopped taking sessions
from people I don't know or don't invite to my studio because I don't
have the patience to put up with that kind of client. I'll tell them as
politely as i can that I'm not the right engineer to work with them and
suggest that they check with some other studios. I wouldn't even
send them to my worst enemy in the business. <g>

I have a friend, now retired, who was the recording engineer for the
US Navy Band. There's a lot of talent there, he was able to spend
money on gear when he needed it, and mostly his work was fun. He
told me about a lady admiral who was retiring, and who sang with the
band some 30 years ago. She wanted to make a CD before she left,
and of course my friend Bill got the assignment. It was his duty, he
didn't have a choice.

Needless to say, she had lost a lot in those 30 years, and he spent
most of the next two weeks making several hundred edits (this was
pre-AutoTune). When she listened to the CD, she had a big smile on
her face. proclaiming "See! I've STILL got it!" at her retirement
ceremony.


> You lucky people.

It's not a matter of luck. You have to know when to say "no."


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson

On Mar 5, 4:21*pm, Mike Rivers <mriv...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> Luxey wrote:
> > Recently I worked with "one" who could not sing, could not play
> > guitar, but wanted it so badly.
>
> And apparently you wanted the money (or fame??) so badly that
> you were willing to work with this person.

I wanted money, but not so badly.
I've already recorded this person once, more than 10 years ago.
That time we started work together in studio and finished with
something not too bad, but bad enough.
Also, I could not terrorize daughter and wife for so long, as I
anticipated this would take, since I edit and mix at home.
Therefore, I've tried passing it to a friend, who used to work in
larger commercial places and play on records that actually sold,
now in rather bad financial position, and has his own place to mix.
Well, call me a hypocrite. He accepted, but artist did not. Claimed
good experience with me. Therefore I put up rate I was sure to be
refused, but I was wrong. Well, at least ther's money.

Contrary to previous experience, this time i got cd with some
"preproduction" files and was astonished how bad it was.
Therefore I returned to this friend of mine for help. He accepted,
but unfortunately got too drunk on D day (who'd guess), so called me
to record, and he'll mix and edit. Turned out he to be decision maker
and negotiator with artist (possibly the worst option on the menu),
while I played engineer role, and did 99% of editing, and so on. At
least we did it at his place.
Yes I got the most of the money, he sobered and we had a good time
joking arround, and artist was satisfied in the end, and I do not
complain. I just wish it turned out different.

> It's not a matter of luck. You have to know when to say "no."

Sure, but you have to know how to say it. Simple "no" can be
offensive.
"No" on longer stick can turn out ineffective.

V.