I don’t think you’re off on this. And everyone here asserts that processing happens everywhere...well hell. The “process” of recording -even in the most unhindered approach and using a single ribbon mic -itself creates a type of signature or artifact that may not be representative of the “truest” sound of the moment. All that aside, there are modern examples of vocal artists grabbed with a real sense of presence, harkening back to some of those techniques of the past. One record I’ve really enjoyed lately with a few different singers (Kurt Elling, Nancy Harms, Kendra Shank) a great reed player in Lucas Pino, centered on an intimate staging with a direct, warm yet non-syrup (little or no reverb or processing so sometimes they’re whispering in your ears) is jazz pianist/composer Jeremy Siskind’s 2015 recording: Housewarming. Check it out and let me know what you think. In fact, many younger jazz musicians (the most honest and applied young jazz musicians and singers) are moving to as little “coloration” in order to preserve and not obscure the interaction and presence in the performance. A mix of traditional jazz intension with new world equipment.
Jazz vocalists which may not be as real as we think/imagine
Sure we could include all genres of vocalists, but lets focus on jazz performers,,for instance , take Diana Krall.
I have a pile of cds that i do not listen to, old rock,,, 2 are my wife's she picked up as gifts, and never listened.
So I figured maybe I can use DK's as a test reference recording.
Her 1999 and 2001, both seem to my ears her voice is somehow ~~tweeked~~ laid out with modern aids such as EQ's and such.
My Q is , can we really consider DK's voice to be The Real Deal,,, or a perhaps a toch of ~ The Fake if not perhaps, bordering on, fraud.
I really can not use her cds in my testing of new tweeks, mods, , Her voice comes across wayyyy too warm = Colored = a nono for my ears.
I am after pure cold frigid, icy clean mountain spring water.
Anyway, justa random thought,, what say ye? Have you noticed this quirk among other jazz performers such as Sophie Milman, which btw , i do use in my YT vid uploads of testing reference on tweeks/mods/upgrades.
Her voice is at least somewhat more~~ a natural~, Just barely,,had her engineers gonea tad too far in tweeking, I may have to also disreagrd her cds.
Sure you might object and claim all recordings post 1985, have these intrusions of tweeking /EQing the voice, as a makeover.
I don't know, maybe in the past 20 yrs things have gotten out of hand.
So cast your vote, is DK's voice real deal,, or a tad fake?
Can she perform unpluged as she does on high tech studio records?
I have a pile of cds that i do not listen to, old rock,,, 2 are my wife's she picked up as gifts, and never listened.
So I figured maybe I can use DK's as a test reference recording.
Her 1999 and 2001, both seem to my ears her voice is somehow ~~tweeked~~ laid out with modern aids such as EQ's and such.
My Q is , can we really consider DK's voice to be The Real Deal,,, or a perhaps a toch of ~ The Fake if not perhaps, bordering on, fraud.
I really can not use her cds in my testing of new tweeks, mods, , Her voice comes across wayyyy too warm = Colored = a nono for my ears.
I am after pure cold frigid, icy clean mountain spring water.
Anyway, justa random thought,, what say ye? Have you noticed this quirk among other jazz performers such as Sophie Milman, which btw , i do use in my YT vid uploads of testing reference on tweeks/mods/upgrades.
Her voice is at least somewhat more~~ a natural~, Just barely,,had her engineers gonea tad too far in tweeking, I may have to also disreagrd her cds.
Sure you might object and claim all recordings post 1985, have these intrusions of tweeking /EQing the voice, as a makeover.
I don't know, maybe in the past 20 yrs things have gotten out of hand.
So cast your vote, is DK's voice real deal,, or a tad fake?
Can she perform unpluged as she does on high tech studio records?
80 responses Add your response
Seems like the OP's post is more of a personal attack on Dianna Krall and her recordings rather than concerns about using her recordings as a test reference.OP - if you don't like her music then don't use it when testing. EVERY recording has some influence from the recording engineers, equipment, etc. That is a fact of life. Get over it. Find a new "test reference. The tone of your original post is so thinly veiled it is obvious you are not a fan of her work. |
This reminds me of all the posts in photography forums about how Photoshop takes away from images and that photographer should "get it right" in the camera. On topic, I've never noticed anything unnatural about Diana Krall's voice on recordings, but then I haven't sat in a room while she was singing and heard her natural voice without amplification or other effects. I fully expect that the team involved in recording the music will (and should) use whatever tools are at their disposal to get the end product they want. Even live recordings often have studio overdubs and editing. |
I doubt we listen to ANY vocalist without some enhancement.
OK now thats understood. Here may be something that was at the back of my mind as i heard Diana Krall, again, a very talented artist, both keys and vocals. That gal can sing, poetry. But at the back of my mind, may have been a long ago fond memory of songs on the AM radio wayyy back when,, taht recollection of sound, amy have triggered my (over) reaction to listening to Diana Kralls studio engineered record... It is such as this one.. Ck out what back then they considered a microphone. I just can not imagine there were many gadgets to mod the voice. I'd just like to believe we are hearing pure talent, with no mods.On songs such as this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbnrdCS57d0 |
I did not interpret the original post correctly. This is only about SQ. Diana Krall's work is typical 90's-present. Subjectively, it has what I call "CD tone" No escaping it, even on the $$$ systems. Probably just in my head, since I'm an LP devotee. "Well tahts helps explain why older Capitol records have such natural flare," Nancy Wilson's albums with George Shearing and Cannonball Adderley have a great sound to them. I doubt we listen to ANY vocalist without some enhancement. The right mix of whatever used is what makes it sound convincing? A basic such as a hint of reverb is part of the magic. |
MOZARTFAN a wise man/woman buys music they like all music is eq and manipulated as millercarbon said if her voice is to fake for your liking don’t play diana krall on your rig she plays fine on my rig the piano sounds great to little eq is nice there are two types of music in the world music you like and music you do not like all the things you are talking about are babble rap on |
The good thing is she bring in a whole new audience who wouldn't think of listening to Jazz or the American Songbook.
Ok now things are making more sense So the record folks are trying to bring out charms in Diana's voice that matches the feelings, shades of the songs melodies. With me there is a certain limit on tech mods that i can accept in a record. Sophie Milman's voice just sounds less tweeked, with Diana my attention is on the studios tech mods to her voice,, I just can't help thinking... Thats all this topic is suppose to be about,,Not ad hominem attack on Diana's wonderful charming gifted voice. Apologies that the OP was awkward and so goofy. |
As for Diana Krall, she isn’t competing with them. She only has to be good enough for today, and that she obviously is
Well tahts helps explain why older Capitol records have such natural flare, And that Diana Krall can easily get away with her high tech modulated record. We live in high tech times and so its quite perfectly acceptable to have this technology employed in records quality. What happened was i was searching for a finely recorded jazz or country female voice as reference in mods/tweeks. I came across Sohie Milman on YT and added 2 of her cds as reference records. I thought they were acceptable as her voice does come across as natural, even though some tweeks may have been added, one can hardly tell, Then i dug out 2 Diana Krall cds,, and noted how different the 2 singers voice came across. That is what prompted this post. I also have jacnitha on order, I came across Jacnitha's voice from a YT vid showing off the Seas Bifrost, I felt this also might makea good reference, as i am interested in adding that speakera s a 2nd speaker. Now how modded is her record, I cam't tell via YT. But sure seems more natural, less modded. We'll see this week https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgaUQO4lvII |
Carmen McRae
Yeah now thats more how i perfer female performers to come across on records. Whereas Nina Simone was a bit too raw. talented, just not my taste. I just don't heard much tweeking in this recording. This is my point, Taht some modern records have taken mod gadgets a bit too far from Au Natural Here would make a great reference cd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qnyaZQELxk |
mozartfan, Vocal manipulation/enhancement began almost as soon as recording did. It’s now almost impossible to find a ’naked’ flat recording of the human voice in popular music. Every single vocal performance on record has been enhanced to some degree or another. Almost anyone you can think of would sound different (less impressive) if they stood before you and sang or spoke. Originally there was echo, double tracking, reverb etc but now there’s zillions of effects available digitally. Yet despite all of these ’advances’ some of the most lifelike vocal performances ever recorded come from the very earliest days. The 1950/60s in particular featured some fabulous vocal recordings from the likes of Sinatra, Nat Cole, Peggy Lee etc. Truly great recordings no doubt but many of them benefitted from the acoustics ( huge natural echo chamber) of the Capitol Studios in LA. ’One of Capitol Studios most unusual and coveted assets are the eight subterranean echo chambers. Located 30 feet underground, the trapezoidal rooms can be accessed by the studios and mastering rooms to add rich reverberation to a vocal. Each of the chambers has thick concrete walls and ceilings. Sound from the studio is sent to speakers in the echo chambers, which is then picked up by microphones and returned to the recording media. With speakers on one side and microphones on the other, the chambers can provide reverberation lasting up to 5 seconds.’ Dare we suggest that Frank, Nat and Peggy might not sound so good elsewhere? As for Diana Krall, she isn’t competing with them. She only has to be good enough for today, and that she obviously is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Studios |
No, the onus is on you. This is how Diana Krall is actually recorded. BTW, Al Schmitt is a true heavy engineer. |
Are we talking about autotune?
Yeah something like that,, but obviously her record studio has alot more high tech gadgets tahn just the old autotune. Alot of audiopphiles lovea warm sound,, Sahdes I've never liked since the mid 70's. So in this style of songs, I can see how some warmth is a good thing,, just saying with my new tweeks, one can clearly hear whats actaully going on in the studio. I can actually detect they added tones that are not natural to Diana ;'s , naturally wonderful voice,, Let be clear about that, had they not tweek the recording, the cd would have wonderful. |
Just reading the heading, I knew Diana Krall would be the subject. The good thing is she bring in a whole new audience who wouldn't think of listening to Jazz or the American Songbook. The bad thing is, seems many don't go deeper, and discover what inspired her. Limitless music, but one must go backwards. Kinda like the R&R crowd picking some of those tired FM radio bands. |
Keep Sophie Millman out of it. She has a wonderful sultry voice and delivery and the recordings are quite good.
Well I only brought in Sophie Milman as a reference to Diana's records, Sophie has superior sonics in the recording,, Agree, lets not bring in Sophie Milman's superior vocals. Diana sure palys fine piano though. No doubt about that |
This is just microphones we're talking here.
Well lets hope fine Neumann tube mics are involved, , its what the **recording emgineers* manipulate after wards lies the problem. Diana should have told studio, no thats too warmish,,I do not sound like that in reality. Lets keep it more real.. Agree all recordings post 1985 are manipulated to a degree that is far off whats real. |
MOZARTFAN this has been going on for 70 years just think elvis presley manufactured by RCA so if diana kralls voice is a tad fake all pop singer are they have all had eq in there records thats the real world hollywood and the music buz is fake
eah well what i was getting at , what might back in Elvis day , been touch ups, now how computer TECHNOLOGY involved, = game changer. Touch ups are one thing , but outright modulations , is going too far from ~~natural~~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVdaFQhS86E |
Another rambling all over the map OP. Brother. Enough to make one think You have no idea what you are talking about. Exactly. So I'm not the only one. Look, every vocal is manipulated to some degree or other. Singing 101: to sound warmer hold the mic closer. To sing higher more clearly hold it farther away. Use the mic that flatters your voice. Etc. Etc. This is just microphones we're talking here. First link in the chain. Any reason to think anything different as we move on down the line? No. Course not. I really can not use her cds in my testing of new tweeks, modsThen the problem is yours. Because whatever changes you make, it changes everything, therefore you should be able to hear it with everything. If you can't that's on you. Not the recording. Certainly not on the singer. Onhwy61 was right: You have no idea what you are talking about. |
It was all about how polished, ~~marketable~~ can we make over her voice = more notable, = more pop-ularity = more shows/contracts = $$$$. Thus Diana was ~~commercialized...Diana realizes this now. Which is why I only listen to certain 20TH C composers and a very few 19th C composers. Rock/jazz not at all interested. |
The onus is on you bro https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/how-make-your-vocals-twice-good-part-1 |