Make Voice Match Key Of Song

[fuzzyhair]

I am going to be recording a kid (8th grade) who I doubt has the best singing skills (I could be wrong though). He wants to make punk music and his dream is to become a punk artist.

It's not my job to tell him what he can and can't do, but it is my job to have a satisfied customer.

I need software or a VST to make his singing sound better, something that can tune his voice.

Any ideas?

[EADGC]

If he can't sing in key that's not your fault, nor should you have to correct it.

[ZapatoDiablo]

Antares Auto Tune works well for me.

[Fraggy]

is that free?

[Motleyguy]

No, I believe it's a fairly expensive plug in. Plus auto tune is evil. Especially if you plan on using it in copious amounts, it just sounds completely obvious, once you know what it sounds like. Kind of "robotic".

[ZapatoDiablo]

No, I believe it's a fairly expensive plug in. Plus auto tune is evil. Especially if you plan on using it in copious amounts, it just sounds completely obvious, once you know what it sounds like. Kind of "robotic".
Luckily for me I have been able to use it for singers that were pretty close to pitch the whole time. It cleans up little errors very nicely though, and with a little reverb there you go. No it wasn't free though :(.

[Motleyguy]

Yeah, I don't mind it when it's used properly, to clean up a few missed notes. I just hate how it's used so much, and so irresponsibly nowadays. Every "bubblegum pop artist" out there is basically auto tuned to death, and it shows. The new Britney Spears track is drenched with it, as well as Sean Kingston, Natasha Bedingfield and T Pain. T Pain has stated he uses it as an effect, but I'm pretty sure that's just because he lacks talent. I could rant for months about auto tune, but I won't.

[Seafroggys]

There's a free one I use that's pretty transparent sounding, but the singer was pretty good to begin with, just enough flat to where a good set of ears can realize it. GSnap I think is what its called.

[Motleyguy]

I've heard of that, so it's pretty good? Is it VST?

[Seafroggys]

Yeah, its VST.

I mean, its pretty easy to make it robotic sounding, it only sounds good when its light, but you can't ask for much from free software.

[Motleyguy]

true, can't complain about free. I've only used Antares. Got really bored one day and made my singer sound like a Daft Punk sort of Euro Trash Douchebag. He was not impressed. Other than amusement like that, I really don't like it.

[chapeau okay]

using obvious autotune is great i love it i dont get why you hate it so much

[fuzzyhair]

What free software can I run GSnap in besides VST Host? Will Kristal work with it? It seems kind of picky...

[naut]

If he can't sing in key that's not your fault, nor should you have to correct it.

well no it's not the engineer's fault that the person can't sing, but yeah, actually he would be expected to correct the problem if it's requested by the band or producer. it's an every day issue that's dealt with all the time.

although, considering it's a 13(ish) year old kid who's into punk music...it would be the least of my concerns. quite frankly, pitch-correcting punk vocals sounds fairly stupid to me, but again, it's about what the band and/or producer wants - not the engineer. regardless, the majority of the time, fixing vocals IS a problem that the engineer must correct, among other things. i personally believe that if you have few skills and litle talent then you shouldn't be in the studio; but i also realize that's a mentality that's not going to get you any business. making a band/artist sound talented is your job, whether you want to do it or not.

[Moseph]

What free software can I run GSnap in besides VST Host? Will Kristal work with it? It seems kind of picky...

I've gotten GSnap to run in VSTHost, however there is an issue involved because VSTHost doesn't support real-time GUI update in some plugins (including the GVST plugins). It does function though, you just need to listen very carefully.

One wacky workaround I discovered when testing it out was that if you tweak a parameter that doesn't matter, the interface updates itself, so you might tweak some stuff, and then fidget the Vibrato Speed with the Vibrato set to 0 cents.

I haven't explicitly tried out Kristal with GSnap. I think Kristal is VST 2.2 compliant, but I could be mistaken. I don't see any reason there should be any serious problems, so I'd start there. Other free hosts that might be more suitable for what you need are: MU.LAB Free (formerly LUNA Free), Maize Studio, REAPER 0.999 and Cantabile Light.

Back to the original question, what style of punk are we talking about? There's a big difference between the Sex Pistols and New Found Glory in terms of vocal style and processing...

[Moseph]

One other thing I forgot to mention...

It's not my job to tell him what he can and can't do, but it is my job to have a satisfied customer.

Actually, sometimes you do need to say "you can't do that." However, this is usually only relavent when it involves techniques, procedures, or equipment.

For instance, my rig lets me record up to 16 inputs at once. If somebody were to walk up to me and say "I have a 20-piece choir I want to record, all at once, each member with their own mic," my stock response would be, "the only way I could possibly do that is if you give me a very large advance to buy more gear."

Similarly, I had a potential client who wanted to record a cover of a Journey song, and he wanted me to make it sound "identical to the original." My response was basically "I can't promise that, but I'll do my best."

I guess my point is sometimes you do need to draw the line, and it's completely appropriate to do so.

[EADGC]

well no it's not the engineer's fault that the person can't sing, but yeah, actually he would be expected to correct the problem if it's requested by the band or producer. it's an every day issue that's dealt with all the time.

although, considering it's a 13(ish) year old kid who's into punk music...it would be the least of my concerns. quite frankly, pitch-correcting punk vocals sounds fairly stupid to me, but again, it's about what the band and/or producer wants - not the engineer. regardless, the majority of the time, fixing vocals IS a problem that the engineer must correct, among other things. i personally believe that if you have few skills and litle talent then you shouldn't be in the studio; but i also realize that's a mentality that's not going to get you any business. making a band/artist sound talented is your job, whether you want to do it or not.

If the kid can't sing he shouldn't be in the studio, he should be practicing or taking some vocal lessons.


But that's also true.


I don't know what I'd do. The way I see it, it IS your job to please your customer. But on the other hand, if you keep correcting, editing, and processing the **** out of the kid's vocals, how is he going to realize that he needs to get better?

[Motleyguy]

using obvious autotune is great i love it i dont get why you hate it so much

A) it sounds like ****. I like listening to people sing, not sound like robots

B) To me it represents a large portion of what's wrong with the music industry today. So many artists out there aren't even artists, they're twenty somethings who are attractive enough to sell records. Sure they probably can sing a bit, but studio magic does most of it, and auto tune is one of the main culprits. It's used irresponsibly, and it pisses me off.

[Seafroggys]

^^^ he was a troll, which is why I didn't bother responding.

[Motleyguy]

Aha, I had to. I'm so damn passionate about my hatred for it. Yet I'm sure I'll wind up having to use it at some point in my life. I don't mind it when used responsibly, to clean up a note here or there.

[naut]

If the kid can't sing he shouldn't be in the studio, he should be practicing or taking some vocal lessons.


But that's also true.


I don't know what I'd do. The way I see it, it IS your job to please your customer. But on the other hand, if you keep correcting, editing, and processing the **** out of the kid's vocals, how is he going to realize that he needs to get better?

i understand, and agree, but...

engineer ≠ music teacher

it's just simply not your job. like i said, i understand that perspective, but it's a mentality that one must really grow out of if they ever expect to make any money as an engineer. if serious criticisms were to be given to the artist, it's the job of the producer, if anyone.

this is kind of a dumb example, but look at this way:

i make very little money at my job. as a result, my bank account is always nearly empty, and essentially i just scrape by. now, of all the services my bank accountant provides me with, is it their duty, or obligation to tell me to get a better job and make more money? of course not.

[naut]

A) it sounds like ****. I like listening to people sing, not sound like robots

that's because it's being used as an effect in the context you're referring to; but i'm quite sure you're already aware of that since you mentioned it - which is why i'm confused by your point...

i mean, when auto-tune is in typical use, you wouldn't notice it. like the philosophy of women's make-up. same with compression, the average person doesn't recognize compression. however, it can be used as a very apparent effect, which people would surely notice.

i don't like auto-tuners in any form, i believe it's bullshit. however, i think it's kind of absurd to dismiss it when it's used as a blatant effect, as opposed to when it's secretly being used to correct someone's shoddy singing. i think the latter is the least respectable.

[EADGC]

i understand, and agree, but...

engineer ≠ music teacher

it's just simply not your job. like i said, i understand that perspective, but it's a mentality that one must really grow out of if they ever expect to make any money as an engineer. if serious criticisms were to be given to the artist, it's the job of the producer, if anyone.

this is kind of a dumb example, but look at this way:

i make very little money at my job. as a result, my bank account is always nearly empty, and essentially i just scrape by. now, of all the services my bank accountant provides me with, is it their duty, or obligation to tell me to get a better job and make more money? of course not.

I'm not saying the engineer should tell their clients to practice more. I'm just saying that by using technology to make up for a lack of skill, you're not going to help them get any better.

I did some recording for a friend of mine. In one of her own songs, she kept hitting a certain note out of tune. Could I have auto-tuned it? Probably. But I just told her it was off, she fixed it. Saved me the trouble, made the recording better (and authentic), and taught her to watch that part of the song from then on.

Of course it's a different story because she was my friend.. but still. The point was that she realized where she was going wrong, and if I just touched it up, she wouldn't have.

[EADGC]

i don't like auto-tuners in any form, i believe it's bullshit. however, i think it's kind of absurd to dismiss it when it's used as a blatant effect, as opposed to when it's secretly being used to correct someone's shoddy singing. i think the latter is the least respectable.

I agree.

[Moseph]

What we're really getting into here is a very old argument about workplace pragmatism versus workplace ideals. The bottom line is that there needs to be a personal decision made about who you choose to work with and why.

On the one hand, the engineer may need to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head.

On the other hand, the engineer may not want to have their name associated with something they feel is a poor product.

I'm betting its very rare that a situation arises where anyone here acting as an engineer can't refuse to start or continue a project without losing anything more than a paycheck and a potential future client (though I know they exist: it happened more than I'd like to think about in the 70's when it was common to keep cocaine and firearms on-hand in the studio). At some point, you need to figure out the trade-off of the factors for yourself. Consider that trade-off one of the reasons we call it "engineering" rather than "technical operation."

[naut]

I'm not saying the engineer should tell their clients to practice more. I'm just saying that by using technology to make up for a lack of skill, you're not going to help them get any better.

well, one last time..."it's not the engineer's job." you just don't do **** like that. it's not professional at all.

[EADGC]

well, one last time..."it's not the engineer's job." you just don't do **** like that. it's not professional at all.

You don't do what, exactly?

[naut]

oh my god are you kidding me? what have we been talking about? :lol:

[EADGC]

You don't leave off-pitch vocals unedited, or you don't tell your clients that they need to improve, or both?

[naut]

well i was talking about it not being the engineer's place to tell a client they need to get better at what they do. as for manipulating the pitch of vocals/other instruments, quantizing drums/bass/etc, and whatever else - it's either by the band's or producer's request, or the engineer's jurisdiction. however, if say the engineer decides to auto-tune some vocals, it's done discretely. i mean, when the band pops into the cutting room you certainly don't announce: "um hey i just had to auto-tune your vocals, get good plz." :p

[fuzzyhair]

You guys I just asked for some software to tune his vocals, not a argument about whether it's ethical.

I believe no matter what the customer is always right. I just do what I need to do to please them and make money that I need for college.

Thanks everyone who answered the question.

Oh, btw, the "punk" is probably going to end up being more pop-punk (green day dookie style) if that helps.

[Motleyguy]

that's because it's being used as an effect in the context you're referring to; but i'm quite sure you're already aware of that since you mentioned it - which is why i'm confused by your point...

i mean, when auto-tune is in typical use, you wouldn't notice it. like the philosophy of women's make-up. same with compression, the average person doesn't recognize compression. however, it can be used as a very apparent effect, which people would surely notice.

i don't like auto-tuners in any form, i believe it's bullshit. however, i think it's kind of absurd to dismiss it when it's used as a blatant effect, as opposed to when it's secretly being used to correct someone's shoddy singing. i think the latter is the least respectable.

It's also blatantly obvious in alot of songs where it isn't being used as an effect. eg "Love Like This" by Natasha Bedingfield, or the new Britney Spears song. I've also Dixie Chicks songs with the same thing going on. It's annoying as an effect, and irresponsible when used in that amount and it isn't an effect.

[EADGC]

It's also blatantly obvious in alot of songs where it isn't being used as an effect. eg "Love Like This" by Natasha Bedingfield, or the new Britney Spears song. I've also Dixie Chicks songs with the same thing going on. It's annoying as an effect, and irresponsible when used in that amount and it isn't an effect.

That's your opinion, though.

[EADGC]

well i was talking about it not being the engineer's place to tell a client they need to get better at what they do. as for manipulating the pitch of vocals/other instruments, quantizing drums/bass/etc, and whatever else - it's either by the band's or producer's request, or the engineer's jurisdiction. however, if say the engineer decides to auto-tune some vocals, it's done discretely. i mean, when the band pops into the cutting room you certainly don't announce: "um hey i just had to auto-tune your vocals, get good plz." :p

Well you're right, it's not their place.

But I still maintain that anyone who's that bad of a singer shouldn't be recording vocals in the first place.

So it's really a tough call. I'm not sure what I would do.

[Motleyguy]

That's your opinion, though.

Yes, true. But irresponisble use of this technology is a fact.

[naut]

But I still maintain that anyone who's that bad of a singer shouldn't be recording vocals in the first place.

absolutely.

[naut]

It's also blatantly obvious in alot of songs where it isn't being used as an effect. eg "Love Like This" by Natasha Bedingfield, or the new Britney Spears song. I've also Dixie Chicks songs with the same thing going on. It's annoying as an effect, and irresponsible when used in that amount and it isn't an effect.

i didn't say it was an "effect" when it's used subversively. that's why i made the compressor comparison, i.e. it's an effect when used in excess.

[EADGC]

The thing about auto-tune is that it's a continuum. It's hard to say when exactly it makes the shift from "covering up out of tune singing" to "purposeful use as a vocal effect".

imo

[naut]

not really. it's obvious when it's an effect.

Chris Brown - "Kiss Kiss"

Cher "Believe"

those are both examples where it's a clear effect. anyone who says otherwise, and claims it's just covering up their lack of skill is a titbag. when it's used as a corrective device, you don't notice it. if you claim you can hear it then it wasn't used discretely. that's the thing, people love to associate auto-tuning with pop artists. well guess what, just about all your favorite bands do it too.

[EADGC]

I know it's obviously an effect a lot of the time, but still, it's not like you can draw a line between "cover up" usage and "effect" usage. That's all I'm saying.

[naut]

i disagree, but alright. i'll go back to women's make up:

effect:

http://blog.evite.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/11/mufe.jpg

cover up:

http://www.servethegoddess.com/make%20up%20lesson.jpg

it still comes down to speculation and perspective though, you're right. i just think there's an apparent difference between the two uses, but hey that's me.

[Moseph]

Oh, btw, the "punk" is probably going to end up being more pop-punk (green day dookie style) if that helps.

Then I'd suggest compression and light reverb for sure. You can make it more "epic" using delays on long notes.

[Motleyguy]

not really. it's obvious when it's an effect.

Chris Brown - "Kiss Kiss"

Cher "Believe"

those are both examples where it's a clear effect. anyone who says otherwise, and claims it's just covering up their lack of skill is a titbag. when it's used as a corrective device, you don't notice it. if you claim you can hear it then it wasn't used discretely. that's the thing, people love to associate auto-tuning with pop artists. well guess what, just about all your favorite bands do it too.

It's really not that hard to hear, even when it's used discretely. Once you know what it sounds like, you don't stop hearing it. I hear it alot, coming in one notes here and there. Most artists these days do use it, as the label or producer on the project prefers them to. I believe New Found Glory was one case there, but there's times when you know that it's not being used as an effect, and a vocal track is just drenched with it, and that's what I call irresponsible use of it. Oh, and most of my favourite artists don't use it, cause they were around before it existed.

[kidthatplaysguitar91]

have the kid record in sections, keep doing the section till he gets it right. He probally doesnt know about some miracle voice correction software plugin..

[EADGC]

i disagree, but alright. i'll go back to women's make up




it still comes down to speculation and perspective though, you're right. i just think there's an apparent difference between the two uses, but hey that's me.

I understand your point. I realize that it's usually obvious when it's an effect. I'm just saying that it's hard to pinpoint exactly where it makes the shift.

[fuzzyhair]

have the kid record in sections, keep doing the section till he gets it right. He probally doesnt know about some miracle voice correction software plugin..

true. I may just not use it to save time. I will record each part in sections, like I usually do.