Here is another opportunity to hear how vocals sound with and without the accompanying tracks (from some excellent vocalists).

It gives you something to compare your own vocal against. Careful, critical listening can give you ideas about how to process your own vocals.


For the song "Tequila"

The song:
https://soundcloud.com/danandshay/tequila?in=danandshay/sets/dan-shay-3

The Vocals only:
https://soundcloud.com/danandshay/tequila-the-vocals




For the song "Speechless"

The song:
https://soundcloud.com/danandshay/speechless?in=danandshay/sets/dan-shay-3

The Vocals only:
https://soundcloud.com/danandshay/speechless-the-vocals

The thing that really stands out for me is HOW PROCESSED they are.

Wow, every plugin known to man.


On Hey Jude, all Paul McCartney did was sing.

We've come a long way. Everybody go to the Waves site and get out your credits cards.

First thing I noticed was how even the soft passages were with the louder passages. Most of the time, my vocals fade away at the end of the phrase and get lost. Obviously compression, but likely also some judicious fader work.

Second thing I noticed was the EQ. Can't say I know precisely how to "get there", but for modern music, high and clear is the way to go. Third thing, they didn't completely eliminate "breathes". Made for a more natural sound in this genre.

All of that, with other effects tricks, made the vocals stand out cleanly and ride the build of the song.

I can't say for sure, but I wouldn't doubt there is some pitch correction going on here too, in spots. Might be a different effect, but there seems to be a bit of that "sound" here and there. Again, for this style of modern country, to un-blue some of those notes seems perfectly fine. There is plenty of soul remaining.

Nice to be able to have that "guide". I liked the acapella version just fine, actually.

That may have been all McCartney did, David. But that's not all George Martin and the engineers did.

Yeah, I realize they used effects at Abbey Road, but very minimal compared to today.

I know the kind of effects they are using and that they are using a lot of them--and I know because I think I have most of them.

However, to the extent they are using them I can no longer hear a human voice. I hear a robot and that is cool if that is what you like to listen to.

I like hearing vocal chords not an overdose of plugins but that is just me.

I also know I am in the minority, perhaps, but that is ok.

Just a personal observation on a public post. Very interesting post, though, don't get me wrong. I did learn something from it.

But for a comparison, here are the effects I like the best.

I think this is it.

They will be on special at Waves next month.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN1km_3J2us

I was actually hoping to hear the vocals as they were recorded when I clicked play. Maybe a side-by-side demo of that with the vocal track as it was mixed would have been more instructive, but I doubt that's why they did this.

If you really listen to Johnny Cash's late recordings, there's no doubt they were processed in some ways. Even the early recordings were, way before digital, if in no other way than by the nature of the analog devices available to them.

No human voice with much backing sounds "good" recorded, though I agree this is something of overkill and not what I'd be trying to do with my own particularly ugly and hard to mix vocals. I just think they used good practice. I prefer a delay over a reverb, for example, but when you listen to the full mix, it's not overpowering. They made their choices, though it's not really my favorite way to hear vocals either.

There's some instructive value in that. Ramping up the FX is how you learn what they do. Finding the sweet spot is more subjective. For the most part, I think they succeeded within their genre and for their audience even though I'd rather listen to Johnny Cash.

It's interesting to hear how the lead vocal is accompanied by harmony almost the entire time. Yet, the harmonies are mixed in with the full track to be barely noticeable most of the time. Well, I mean, barely noticeable to the casual listener which is different for for those of us who perform, record and mix.
To me it does sound like the harmonies are hard pitch corrected and the lead vocal is tightly doubled with gentle pitch correction in selective places,... a lot of selective places.
I don't hear a lot of over compression on the vocals but it was likely volume automated, along with good mic technique from a well trained vocalist to keep it in front just enough.
This comparison also helps me hear how the music track has just the right EQ gap for the particular vocalist. That's something I really need to work on. It doesn't sound so much like it was EQ'd to make it fit but more like the proper instrumentation naturally left that space for the vocals. Near the end the vocals and music start to blur a little which increases activity to keep interest. But by then the vocal lines are pretty much embedded in the brain to the extent that the music does not cover them up.
Of course I'm guessing at all of this.
BTW, my opinion of this song; It's a terrible song done very well. A song like this would never be in my set list. Did someone mention this is Modern Country? I would say, it's a pop song about love and booze with a resonator solo. Not enough elements to qualify for Country and overwhelming pop elements. This is the kind of song that gets me to switch radio stations. Oh, I appreciate the professionalism, talent, all that. It's just not for me and I don't really enjoy it. It doesn't get me to sing along.
But, I can learn a lot from it that's for sure.

According to wikipedia;
"Before the duo's foundation, [Shay] Mooney was a solo artist on T-Pain's Nappy Boy Entertainment label,. . ."
So, no surprise if pitch correction might be in use. At least it's not "Cher-ish". And, I confess, I use it often enough on myself and others I record. The free MAutoPitch from Melda Production.
The article also alludes to the duo being headed for a pretty big career.

Admittedly, these vocals are heavily processed. That is appropriate for the style and genre of where the song lands. It is "radio Pop/Country" - and has to compete with all the other radio Pop/Country out there. It is a "modern" treatment of vocals. That is certainly "not for everybody" and is not appropriate for all types of music. Not many people (certainly on these forums) write or produce music aimed at being "more commercial". The singer-songwriter and old style Country and Rock can get by with far less processing - to remain sounding "vintage"...

But, it doesn't hurt - and might well help - for folks to train their ears to hear what has been done with these vocals to place them where they intend to go (radio, modern ears and earbuds). The use of as much delay as reverb is likely new to some. As mentioned, the level of soft sections to loud sections is important in any recording. The use of harmony through so much of the sing, while again, not necessarily right for all genres, is interesting - also the fact the much of it is a third below the main vocal...

The vocals are clean and crisp, but not with a bunch of jacked-up high EQ (which is a mistake many make) - so they remain "warm" and still cut through the mix - a worthy goal in any vocal recording.

It is nice to have the vocal-only recording for comparison. We got little of that in the past. And "little tricks" learned from studying something like this can translate into something "new" in your own music - and give it a "fresh" sound. If all you ever do is "the same old thing" then your music will remain sounding like "the same old thing".

I think every time I mix a song I try something new on the vocal. That's how you get better at this game I think.

The delay+reverb was new to me until the last time you posted the vocal only tracks a few months back, and it works a treat. Also sidechain compression to control the reverb and delay, I used that for the last couple of songs.

For us doing mostly blues/classic rock type music I keep other effects to a minimum to keep it "real", but I find it very interesting to listen to stuff like this. In particular, as you mentioned, the way they handled the harmonies.

Thanks for posting!

Continuing to experiment and continuing to learn are what it's all about.

(your vocals [processing on Chris'} have continued to notch up with each new post)

Part of the equation for the song, mix and vocals is the intended audience. The people attending the concerts, buying the gear, following the acts on social media, purchasing the downloads and, most importantly, supporting the advertisers are in high school to early thirties. They are just starting out and building their place in society.

In addition to modern country they listen to hip hop, rap, pop, their parent's music and ours when they have too. It makes sense modern country reflects their musical interests.

To make things even more complicated (or less, as the case may be) I ordered the Waves Maserati Vocal plugin VX1, for 20 dollars with my credit.

It has many of the effects Floyd has been referring to in his columns, but with more subtlety and less brittleness than some other plugins. It is really warm for pop and rock vocals.

I compared it to CLA and Nectar this morning and decided it will be my main front and center Vocal plugin from here on out though I will use the other plugins I have for additional tracks, just mixed down lower in the mix depending on how I want the sound (like The Abbey Road ADT.)

I tend to have as many as six instances of the main vocal alone with different effects and one pushed up higher and the rest as flavor.

Also, I find background vox are different than main vox. In that context Waves CLA Vocals is PERFECT for background because it does give you that modern processed feel, whereas I now prefer Maserati for the main.

Nectar is still cool in its place but it is a little too brittle for me to be up front.

I put another $10 coupon on this forum, so if you decide to go this route you could maybe get this for $20 bucks or so today.

* Be careful googling demos of this plug in on YouTube. Stick to known sites like Waves. Norton just blocked a trojan attack on a simple unsuspicious-looking youtube demo. Crazy world.

Yep... it is what it is. And that's the way it's going to be for a very long while in pop music.

Doing what they (Dan + Shay) are doing is relatively easy.

1. Sing the main track relatively close to the melody
2. Use pitch correction software to fix the track
3. Use pitch correction software to create one or more "harmony tracks" by cloning.
4. Edit the notes that don't work with the major 3rd/major 5th harmony to something that does work.

Back in the old days when the Beatles were recording, they would spend sometimes as much as several days working on the vocal doubling track to get it perfect. They didn't have the convenience of digital editing and correction software. Listening to their work in that context makes it even that much more amazing....and that it was done mostly with 4 tracks on tape.... at least in the early days.

My old ears are too long gone for me to make much of a statement regarding what I heard - so now I prove it I read all the responses before listening and I was expecting some entirely different from what I heard.

I anticipated a smashed non-organic feel. What I heard didn't fit that bill. There was an edge of resonance to the vocal that along with the remaining breath intakes made it feel intimate (as in close). Modern pop...hell, I don't know but I think it would sound fine in a typical Americana mix.

Grains of salt...actually boatloads and FWIW's galore.

Bud

That was largely my impression too, Bud. Hell, I'd LOVE to have had the skills, tools, or outside help to massage most of mine into something similar--just, perhaps, not as much.

I'd have especially loved the "outside help". The worst part about mixing my vocals is that I have to listen to my vocals.

*weeping* I just want to hit the d--n notes! Is that so wrong?

Mercifully I've never even recorded mine But my recording of Janice's vocals has been quite a sonic journey for me from our analog bluegrass days (stage and studio) to today with our more Americana bluesy approach. I don't know if my approach would be considered modern or not but FWIW I'll mention it.

- I use Nectar's breath controller to reduce but never eliminate breath intakes.
- I never comp vocals and I don't own a pitch editor...nothing against them at all -- just don't need it.
- 75% of the time I'll double her vocal track and stack them both dead center. For the top track I have a custom Nectar 2 preset with a little reverb, compression and an EQ setting (that I've used for years). On the bottom is another custom Nectar 2 preset that differs from the above with a little delay, no reverb, different compression and some tape saturation. I mix them about 60%/40% regarding gain.

I've always enjoyed pretending I know what the hell I'm doing but folks do seem to like her vocals. And the processing may sound like a lot but there are very, very small doses of the effects.

Bud

PS Apologies for the off topic ramble...