I'm sure we are all aware of this, but still an interesting article.

Vocal Comping

Interesting article. Most likely not much new information for users in this forum but some maybe surprised the practice is as common as it is.

I thought the quotes by Mike Senior and Ken Lewis were pretty good. I REALLY appreciated the tip about hiding edits behind instrument sounds. I also thought the comments about clues to recognizing comps in songs informative.

Great ..

I'm currently working on narrations for lessons at an academy. Last thing I need is someone pointing out how to spot the edits .. especially when a single vocal track is all there is.
Here's hoping!
Using the same mic/preamp/interface/system in the same room on the same night of the week every week (and wearing the same clothes for luck) ..

Some of this stuff is tough, but it can be done!

Thanks for sharing that article Caaron, enjoyed it.

One of the tools I use once in a while for the pitch side of things is:

Singing Coach

You can create a MIDI file of your vocal melody and plot your voice to a graph on the screen while recording. The graph plots with the MIDI notes so you can tell if you're a little sharp or flat. If you or your singer practice through some runs on this before recording, you may not have as much to comp later.

FREE version does not allow you to use your own MIDI files but it shows you how the tool works for deciding on purchase.

Interesting story. I guess if you have a huge budget, lots of time, and someone else is picking up the engineer's tab.... that works. Oh yeah, and, lets not forget.... a good voice to start with!!

As for me, recording non-top 10 songs in my studio mostly for fun.... I think 3 or 4 takes will work fine, hit it with Melodyne, punch in what ME can't fix in a transparent manner, put the takes in the mix layered and panned, slap some EQ and verb on it and let it roll, because , let's face it..... I'm not exactly singing at the level of Kenny Rogers, George Strait, or any of the big artists for that matter.

100 takes.... I can't even imagine how tedious that would be trying to comp. Knowing how many phrases, words, and syllables are in a given pop song..... then multiply that by 100..... now, listen to, and categorize each and every one..... now, pick the parts and put them together......

.....and don't forget to click the "SAVE" button every now and then.

I agree just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you need to. A good vocalist should be able to do it in 3 takes and maybe several extra punch ins for harder parts. How did they do it before they got all this digital wizardry? I doubt 100 takes would make an appreciable difference in performance other than wearing out the vocalist.

I agree with Herb 100%

I don't think what you are saying is what Herb was saying though. Just my opinion. I'm not going to speak for him.

For top 10 hits, comping is what they do. It's not "I'm sure some do" they ALL do MANY, MANY takes.

For what we do, it's probably not necessary. The reason I say "probably" is, if it's what someone wants to work on, go for it.

It's all fine in my book. I'm not commenting on what someone else should or shouldn't do.

I guess what I am saying is years ago pretty much none of this was done and many wonderful hits were released. I believe in comping to have insurance that you have enough. 100 takes and editing to the syllable seems excessive to me and you run the risk of getting too sterile but then again I'm not footing the bill and to each his own. I may just be too much an old fart.

Well, they used to have one mic in the studio and there was ONE TAKE.... learn the song, rehearse the song, then sing it into the mic. Hank Williams, Ernest Tubb, Kitty Wells, Bob Wills, Elvis, Patsy Cline,..... the list goes on and on...... all recorded that way and sound just fine. In fact, compare Cline's one take vocals to any of the singers out today.

Personally, I think this whole comping thing is a ruse. Kinda like the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz movie, all smoke and mirrors designed to impress someone..... they record all those takes to make it look like they are really a super audiophile (and they may be for all I know) ... to the folks with the money..... in the case of 100 tracks of one lead vocal...... I'd wager they might pick the best one out of the first 5 or so..... cut and paste a few places, essentially comping the track in much the same way I have done with 3 to 5 tracks.....run some transparent Melodyne on a few other nits and call it done..... but then hold off for a few days so they can then say... hey, I slaved over these tracks for the past 5 days or two weeks, or whatever...... by the way, here's my bill for labor.

How do you even listen to 100 tracks and say, .... in the 2nd verse, line two, word number 3 last syllable of the 3 syllable word is the best out of all the 100 tracks.... give me a freaking break!!!

I'm not a professional singer by any stretch of the imagination, but even I can get a vocal track right and nearly phrase perfect in under 5 takes. But.... I have also rehearsed and learned the song before I hit the record button. Beyond 5 takes, I'm simply taking up more valuable hard drive space and accomplishing nothing useful. I will listen to the tracks, look at them, and decide which one becomes the lead and which ones become the layers for thickening. I generally pick the one that needs less work, less fixing, and is generally better right out of the gate. However, there's really not that much difference between them all. That's why I can easily use them to layer and double the lead without the need to fix them.

So.... if the artist cuts 100 tracks for the lead vocal..... how many dozens more are recorded for the harmony vocals?

I agree - there's no way 1 person can listen to every note sung on an entire song 100 times each to figure out the best one. after just a couple of notes a person's ears will already be fatigued! comping 100 takes of a lead vocal is just not practical at all.

Please know that when I say this, I'm not saying it is in any way practical. I know personally, it would be WAY WAY WAY beyond what I would ever even care to do.

For me, that would put me into complete overwhelm.

So are we clear, it's not something I personally would EVER do?

Now, that being said, I had a friend who did actually do this. We weren't close friends but enough so that I did get to witness his work. So NOT for me!

I found out that he wasn't so much comparing from the aspect of just going in blindly to see which one he liked best out of all of them. It was more an approach of he knew the sound he was looking for and checked to see which he felt was closest to that sound. Those sounds he would compare.

That also doesn't mean that he did every single syllable of every word. If they were fine they were fine. If they weren't, sometimes he would have to listen to the same mistake many, many times in different tracks, until he found one that wasn't that way.

I'm not in any way defending his methods, just saying I saw it first hand. And it wasn't like he was doing it to impress me by any means. It was his job, and he got amazing results.

Bottom line is I don't think people that do this are lying.

He was elite, and got paid very well for it.

My personal take is, there are people in ANY field of endeavor that take things WAY beyond what the rest of us would.

I've heard stories of titans of industry, great athletes, writers, you name it who do things we would never dream of.

Just because we think we could get the same results easier, doesn't mean that we can.

I'm sorry to say, with all do respect, we (notice I included me in this) can sit and talk, but they are doing AND get far superior results! There are the players on the field, and the fans in the stands. Then there are the armchair quarterbacks. Just my opinion.

I'm neither a player on the field, nor an armchair quarterback. I'm probably more flag football level. I play, but come on....do I really think I'm playing? Nope

He was a great guy, well respected, AND down to earth.

I will also say he committed suicide. I've always wondered, but don't know, if it had anything to do with his obsessiveness.

Striving for perfection can be taken too far, in my book.

I will take a first or second take any day because after that you lose the emotion and the live feel. I will take a first or second take even if it has a couple of small warts in it. If it has a large wart the cut and paste works just fine for me. YMMV.

There's not enough tricks or comps to make MY vocal work

With today's DAW's, it's best to hit record even on your warm up time. And I LOVE punch in capability. My motto is to always record more than I need in case I need more than I have....

Gems sometimes happen unintentionally, even if you're just playing around.

There was a YouTube video about vocal recording from Alan Parsons that's no longer up on YouTube but there was a portion featuring Michael McDonald. He said in the interview he normally has to practice 3-4 hours before his voice is suitable to him to begin actual serious takes.

but was he also the vocalist or was he recording someone else? do professional vocalists really do 100 takes? I can't imagine doing this because after 20+ takes the vocalist is going to be worn out and the rest of the vocal takes are going to be crap anyway - assuming they are done all in one day.

Many of my songs are first or second vocal take. Because recently, I haven't even been doing layering. I've gotten really lazy on a few songs.

One take.... punch in on a few mistakes or glitches.... fix the rest with Melodyne...and I'm done.

I didn't mean to insinuate that everyone comping more than 2 dozen tracks was lying about it.... I know they do that, and I know they know what they're doing. It was more like an exaggeration on my part to illustrate how absurd that sounds.... 100 tracks and fixing syllables.

I love a lot of the old music and certainly appreciate how they had to do it! Can you imagine nowadays having to splice a tape when I can do that digitally in a few seconds?

But, I also recognize that, regardless of whether or not you prefer it, today's music, studio performance, recording, mixing, mastering, etc. is far more sophisticated, and I would say a lot better, than my old Hank Williams records! That is just obvious progress during 60+ years of experience!


Yeah, I agree 100%! I find it a chore to even work through 5 tracks. It encourages me to work harder to learn and sing the song better because that part is actually more fun than the sorting through a bunch of mediocre performances!

So true!! I've had both sides of this.

1-Had something because we were recording.

2-Missed something because we weren't



I would have LOVED to see that!

The way comping is being addressed here, you guys are correct that it doesn't take 100 takes to get it right. However, many big studio recordings are done over a considerable period of time, sometimes months or more... No takes are discarded.. The singer comes in several times over a period of several months. New vocals are recorded with alternate phrasing. Different mic's may be used to try a different tone. The vocalist may be asked by the producer to try the song with a different emotional vibe.

There may be several 'alternate' versions of the same song, each requiring different phrasing and emotion. New or additional producers may be brought in - their input can change the direction or breath new life into a song everyone knows is a hit but for some reason or other, the magic hasn't been found yet.

100 takes isn't so awesome over a six month period.
And in the digital domain today, nothing is discarded.

Listen to the out takes and alternate versions of the Beatles and Beach Boys songs available on YouTube. Many early versions of their hits vary greatly from the final commercial single. Also, back in the day, album versions of a song many times differed from the single release.

I also think you guys may be underestimating how advanced tape splicing/editing was back in the day. They really could take pieces from 5-6 different takes of a song music and vocals and cut/splice them into a single composite. There was also a lot of bouncing between machines to save various versions and experiments...
Its not unusual to hear the Beatles stop and restart a song at a bridge or 2nd verse. That could be edited into a completely separate first verse recorded at a different time.

He was recording others.



They are NOT all done in a single day by any means.

Exactly!

I personally have wondered if the number of times they redo a vocal, or any instrument, swells to the allowed budget!

that would definitely make more sense to do them over more than 1 "session."

I'm absolutely not questioning that your friend did it or not. and I'm sure if one person would do it then there are others who would as well. I just can't imagine it really being practical (which I know you've already said you aren't defending the practicality of it).

yep! most places aren't going to come in WAY below budget!

SO VERY TRUE!

I guess it varies with your work flow.
I opened a project and checked the number of 'comps' (edits for one track) .. was surprised. I suppose if the one vocal track has a couple dozen, the others added on may approach 50 pretty quickly here.
100 for professional work doesn't seem unfathomable at all. Heck I may have projects with that many, ain't got time to count 'em!

I have no doubt, and, very likely, a reasonable overage.

Who leaves money on the table when it's there for the taking?

That helps put it in perspective.

Thanks for posting this!

I guess with me I am recording to evaluate live performance.....so I want all my vocals single take to see if they are ready for live performance. I record vocals, backing tracks, and live instruments and then evaluate. It gives you a measure on mixing balance and performance. For me I seldom get thru a vocal completely flawless but totally acceptable. My fiance who has a fantastic voice is pretty much flawless.....drives me crazy. So none of this applies to why we comp...for me it just gives me some insurance that I have enough to work with. When I recorded my band for a demo I wanted it to be completely live so it was a fair representation of us live. Because we didn't do retakes just set up and played thru I had a few I had to toss because of issues I couldn't do anything with.

Great article.

I am aware of comping, but have to admit that I probably didn't understand the depths that are used to get the 'good' 'better' 'best' takes.

There are many examples on YouTube of recording sessions where you 'see' comping being done but there's no reference noting it. Usually, the emphasis of the video is a more global subject like in
this link to Shania Twain and Lionel Ritchie recording "Endless Love". The recording session is portrayed for the viewer to feel the insecurities and struggles of Shania, so we see her sing a phrase, stop, and so on. But note the recording is being done phrase by phrase. It's not just due to her struggles because even when she nails a take spot on, she stops singing and recording stops. Each and every time.
Endless Love

A few things struck me about this video.

-What you already pointed out.

-The casualness of the environment.

Gone are some of the illusions of the BIG recording studios to pump out a track like this.

thanks for sharing this! I never knew this was out there...even the remake of the song. VERY cool! I enjoyed it A LOT!

This is my favorite video on Sound Engineering:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2Rhh_4GZmU

"thanks for sharing this! I never knew this was out there...even the remake of the song. VERY cool! I enjoyed it A LOT!"

Here's a better one. You get to see David Foster write a song and create the demo on his keyboard at his home studio.

Again, note the copious use of punch in recording.

Shania Twain and David Foster recording "Today"

And then there were Ella and Frank...

Meaning?

There wasn't a lot of comping with Ella .. not so sure about Frank, he always had something up his sleeve. (grin)

I've liked Mr Foster for a long time, it took me a few years to realize I was appreciating his editing/production techniques more than the music. But that's just me.
He had a couple solo things I really liked, and they were probably made on a pretty tight budget at the time ..

Some really great material in this thread, for sure.

One of my favorite CD's is "David Foster Recordings".

Sheer genius no matter how you look at it. From piano to production and everything in between.

All I can say on this is , .......I can't believe we have a beagle sighting!

What's up Rob?! good to see ya!

funny

lots happening in life, been busy this last year. My job moved away, and I started a new business to pay bills spent 3 of the last 7 months doing volunteer work in new York. not much music time, so I am getting up and running again. I hope all is well with you and yours.

So perhaps a "We have a Robh sighting" could apply as well?

wow, a lot has changed for you!

we're doing well! I've been really busy myself, but I still have a job; been doing a lot of volunteer work at the church and been working also as a part time fill in worship leader.

Even though I've been busy I've also still been working on music with a couple of guys from the Cakewalk forum.

http://www.soundcloud.com/scandalous-grace-band

Hope things go well for you and you get time to work on music!


sorry for hijacking the thread, Carron!

No worries at all. I think the subject was done and just went the way it did. Like a real conversation! That is kind of cool that that can happen on here.

All good! Carry on it you would like