Vocal Double-Tracking

Here's a technique that's been used by some of the all-time musical greats, and if you're not already aware of it, let me briefly tell you about it.

Double-tracking a vocal serves many purposes, among them "fillling out" the vocal track, but also creating a warmer and more powerful mood at the same time. Not all types of songs benefit from this, but you'd be surprised how many really do. Oh, and don't confuse this with "chorusing" the vocal. Machine-driven double track doesn't work nearly as well because of its predictability and a sound that tends to be "non-organic."

In order to successfully double-track a vocal, the singer is expected to display total technical discipline. He or she must be able to sign along with his/her best take in EXACTLY the same way. Most singers will not sing 100% accurately but as long as the rhythm and pitch are tight, this can create that broad, warm and powerful sound that can make a good vocal sound great, and has even been known to make a mediocre vocal sound really good and interesting. Some really great singers use this technique to achieve a "natural phasing" effect. You really have to be very disciplined and good to do this, but if you are able to deliver two "identical" performances, you'll notice that the effect is no longer just that of a "chorus" but also more that of a "natural phaser."

When this works, the effect can be mesmerizing.

The trick to double-tracking is not to make it obvious. Listen to a classic album like Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" and you'll be surprised that virtually all vocals on it are double-tracked. But you'd be hard put to pick that out in the mix! Today, a huge majority of singers resort to this technique in the studio (across almost all musical styles too!) simply because the result almost invariably makes them sound way better and more in control.

Just remember: your "reference vocal track" (that best vocal take which you're trying to sing along with) has to have loads of character to begin with. If it doesn't, double-tracking may still help, but "greatness" might elude you... :)

LISTEN TO: 223-Q/Tuesday May 20, 2009

Using Counterpoint in Pop Song Arrangement

While, technically, the word "counterpoint" doesn't mean exactly what it's often being used as (i.e. "change" or "contrast" etc), it's this less precise meaning I'd like to focus on. Let's call it the "element of surprise."

We've all heard the predictable transitions from one part to the next, the standard drum rolls before a chorus comes in, the same riffs, and all that. Some tremendously good songs may fall flat on their face if they fail to surprise the listener or otherwise hold his attention. We've heard it all before, after all.

Enter "conterpoint arrangement techniques."

You'll hear this in some R&B arrangements, but also, increasingly, in many other styles these days. Some radio jingles/promos also often rely on little gimmicks like that. Now, the thing is that a good counterpoint arrangement must not come across as "gimmicky," but rather as "clever!" A good "counterpoint approach" CAN transform an average song into a good one and an good song into a great one. And it can send a great song into the stratosphere!

It's all about changing the way you think. Once you've embraced it, it can transform your productions.

For example, when transiting from verse to chorus, rather than building to a predictable crescendo and doing crazy drum fills, perhaps you can try the opposite? Reduce everything to just one sound (hat, guitar lick, voice - anything), for a bar or so. The chorus will suddenly feel much bigger. The listener will be pleasantly surprised with this effect and then before he can recover from that, the chorus hits him.

Or when you start verse 2, drop everything else out except the vocal and maybe a keyboard. Or, in the middle of a verse, break entirely but leave a sound hanging - just for a second...! It's all about hooking the listener's attention after all!

Another example is "splicing" a completely different bar (or two) in-between highly contrastive parts. Say a rock band is blaring a power chorus and is about to do a repeat. Why not break that up with a tight, dry acoustic strum? Something that's highly musical or rhythmical, but that's not OBVIOUS.

Naturally, it has to work musically. There are no "templates." At its best, this approach creates masterpieces. At its worst, it'sthe stuff of nightmares. But it's almost never indifferent!
Not everyone will be able to come up with a great counterpoint break on their first try. But the principle is solid and still very under-explored in modern music. Listen to some of the best artists out today. Study how they build their hooks! A good counterpoint break can indeed be a powerful hook for your song!

And if all else fails... study Zappa!

LISTEN TO: 224-Q/Wednesday May 27, 2009

Getting Mix Levels Right Often Comes Down To Finding The Correct "EQ Pocket" For Each Instrument

What is "mixing" all about? In simplest terms, it's about getting the "levels" between all instruments right. Sounds simple? It is. Unfortunately, "simple" doesn't always mean "easy."

In order to get your mixes sounding "right" you need a number of tools, the foremost among them being... your ears. But also, you should strive to create the best possible listening environment in your studio. Good monitors are very important as is at least a half-decent mixing desk (or a virtual mixer in your computer), "deadened" studio (at least to some extent...!), etc.

All of this is a subject for another discussion. For now, all things being equal, some people who have all the "right" gear still often don't mix their music "right." So what's it all about? What is needed to make the mix work?

Firstly, get the levels of each instrument set in such a way that no instrument dominates another. Next, set their relative pan positions (e.g. drums and bass in the center, guitars off to left/right, vocal in the center, and so on). Next, determine what "EQ pockets" each instrument needs and ensure that you leave some space for the vocal. All other stuff like effects and such, leave that for later.
So, what is an "EQ pocket?" Every sound source generates a whole range of frequencies. Some of those frequencies can be treated as "discardable" in some situations, simply because the human ear doesn't hear them in the same way as some "principal" frequencies. For instance, a human voice is most typically found in the range between 1 and 3 kHz, but it's also present in the frequencies below and above that range. So, you could say that for a particular type of mix, a particular "pocket" might be desirable and EQ the voice for the voice could be set only in that range.

In some types of dance music, for instance, it's often a good idea to really "thin the vocal out", meaning reduce all lower frequencies and boost some of the mids and highs in order for it to "sit" in the mix just right. In other productions, lower frequencies may be a good thing to emphasize. In others still, the whole vocal sound spectrum needs to be showcased.

Whatever you do, however, just try to be sure that the vocal is the only instrument which sits in a particular frequency range. This is often easier said than done. If you "reserve" the frequencies between, say 1500 and 2500 Hz for the vocal, what about that backing guitar which also has its dominant frequencies in the same range?

Resolving these kinds of frequency conflicts is what mixing comes down to. One obvious way would be to set the volume of the guitar lower than the voice, but that might rob the mix of its dynamics and reduce the guitar to nothing more than "dirt" on the track... So there must be other ways. And there are!

One method which often works well is placing the sounds to the left or right of center. Another method (and often used in combination with the pan and volume) is re-equalising ("re-EQ'ing") the sounds. So, perhaps the vocal will still sound good in a narrower band, say, 1500-2000 Hz, while the guitar might be pushed more into the 2000-2500 Hz area...? Experiment! Just don't "deaden" the vocal sound! A little gentle "shimmer" (boosted top frequencies) is often desireable.
Another thing to try might be to compress one of these sounds (using a compressor, of course). I know engineers who compress "everything" but the kitchen sink. Mixes like those tend to be "punchy" and "dense" and typically only work well for dance music. But compression has great uses in ALL mixing jobs, as long as it's applied judiciously.

Ultimately, you can make a great mix without using anything other than a combination of volume, pan and EQ settings! In fact, this is always the recommended approach to start with. This way, when you start adding other effects and compressors, etc, you'll be less likely to "over-do" it. Simpler and cleaner ALWAYS beats over-complicated.

LISTEN TO: 224-Q/Tuesday May 26, 2009

Using Reference Tracks When Mixing

Since I can't always come up with totally "unique" tips, here's an oldie but goodie. Even if you have a great, acoustically balanced studio, this tip is important even for seasoned engineers (which, if they're seasoned, they already know!). But if your studio leaves a lot to be desired, then this tip is particularly useful and can literally save your mix!

It's very simple: reference your mix (i.e. compare it) to a successful, comercially released track, which you feel is at least to some extent similar to your own. Perhaps you'll need to reference it against multiple tracks.

Sometimes you might like a particular drum sound on your reference track 1, but you love the pad placement on reference track 2, and so on. Play those tracks frequently when mixing your own music. Does your music sound too pale in comparison? Too dense? Or are you already beginning to sound like a pro?

Some producers I've worked with take this a step further. They don't just listen and compare. They actually load a finished reference mix into their sequencer and align it with their own production, so they can switch "on the fly."

Occasionally, when their arrangement structure is closely modelled on someone else's I've even even seen them re-arrange their whole song to conform to that "proven formula." Yeah I know what you're thinking... I thought the same: it sounds an awful lot like "ripping off!"

But, believe me, it needn't be. And in my experience with this technique, it never was. But what it does is, it allows you to instantly reference everything from sound to transitions to hooks. And you're free (and indeed obliged) to do everything your own way!

Worth a shot? This referencing method can fast-track your studio processes and help you turn out great-sounding mixes. As long as you're paying attention, of course!

LISTEN TO: 224-Q/Monday May 25, 2009

Fine-tuning Your Ears with... Autotune

Many artists, some very talented ones included, have trouble easily telling the difference between a perfectly pitched tone and an "imperfect" one. You can often hear records where the singer (or a guitarist) performs certain parts just a "wee bit" under or over pitch, just here and there. Most listeners aren't able to tell the difference in a conscious way. But they are most certainly able to detect this anyway. We're all born with solid relative pitch. When something's just slightly out of tune, we will typically perceive it as a bit "weird" or slightly "boring" (without knowing why), depending on whether the performance is over- or under-pitched. In some cases, this may actually help give the song an edge, but in most others, for some unknown, mysterious reason, we very quickly tire of listening and forget the track soon thereafter. Very often, this is caused by imperfect pitching on part of the vocal (or any of the instruments in the band).

Among the producer's most valuable assets is the ability to hear everything perfectly well. And this certainly includes the ability to discern the accurate pitch of any performance, vocal or instrumental. You don't need to have the so-called "perfect pitch" for this. A finely-tuned ability to hear "relative pitch" is more than adequate for this job. But how do you develop it? And what does "finely-tuned" really mean?

We're not talking about "obvious" bum notes here. Only those very subtle ones. Something in the range between 5% and 15% off a semitone...! That's where a lot of the magic lies. Most of us can tell a "bum" note when it's about 25-50% of a semitone off. But what about when it's finer than that..?

Because this "tiny detune" is so subtle, it's easily missed if you don't know what you're looking for. But it's absolutely critical to a great performance to get this right, and as a producer of your own music, you owe it to yourself to do so.

But how? Can you hear the difference between, say, a "perfect" C and a C detuned 20% of a semi-tone down for example? And how about 5%? Well, that's exactly how close you need to be to perfect pitch in order for a performance to always come across as pleasing to our harmonically-sensitized ears! And you need to be able to hear this in real time and help your performer reach "true pitch." The good news is: you can learn this, and quite quickly too!

So, without further ado, here's a little tip which I bet will help you develop your ear in no time. You just need to do this a few times during your recording sessions. And after a while, you won't need this tool any more. You'll be able to pitch tones perfectly by ear.

Most studio musicians these days have or can easily borrow a digital tuning plugin, such as Antares Autotune. Some artists have used Autotune as a "robot-like" effect when rapidly re-tuning vocals. This is, arguably, a pretty cool effect first heard in Cher's "Believe" and is today regularly heard in many pop, R&B and hip-hop tracks. Many "traditionalist" musicians shun this tool, however, believing that it will only "corrupt" their music.

Don't fall for it, please. It won't - if you don't let it! But it can teach you a whole lot about pitching!
Put your (recorded) vocal part through Autotune and watch it correct the pitch. You'll instantly hear the "correct" pitch, even if you might not like the sound of your voice after this kind of processing. Don't worry about that. It's about developing your ears! Now loop a small part, perhaps just a word. Play it with Autotune enabled, then without. Can you hear the difference? Now get your singer to sing it again, this time as close to perfect pitch as possible.

Very soon, sometimes after just one session, you'll be able to identify how far off-pitch a given performance is. Autotune can show you the amount of detune in percentages, so your ear gets that additional visual reinforcement.

And next time when you hear a bum note, you won't just say "it's flat." You'll be able to say "it's 15% of a semitone under-pitch."

This is more than just a cool party trick. This is the difference between producing solid performances and ones that will turn your audience off.

LISTEN TO: 223-Q/Wednesday May 21, 2009

Multiple Mood Vocal Takes

Sometimes, when recording vocals, you might be stuck looking for that special vocal character/sound from your otherwise excellent singer. All seems great and yet the vocal seems to have lost that edge, once committed to tape. If ever you're in this position, here's a simple strategy which just might help you overcome this.

Requirement: Lots of patience and an Audio editing program (e.g. Cubase, Logic, ProTools, etc) which allows you to edit multiple audio takes on one screen, with all takes aligned in time.

The method: Ask your vocalist to do a couple of takes in his or her best "standard" singing voice. Ask the singer to do the entire song and don't stop for errors. Stop after 2 takes. Next, ask the singer to deliver the entire song in a "special" voice. For example, ask him/her to "weep" through the whole song (even if it's not a weepy kind of song!) - call it a "for fun" or "taking the piss" (as the Brits would say) kind of take. The only thing you're now demanding is that they do it as best they can, no matter how over the top it comes out. Do at least 2 takes of this. Ask for another interpretation, for example "nasal" - but ensure it's consistently like that throughout! Do 2 takes of this as well. Don't worry if it sounds "horrible!" Now do 3 or 4 other moods (sexy/whispery, angry, loony, psychotic, romantic, yawning - you can make those moods up as you go). Typically go for 2 takes of each kind. Finally, do 2 takes in a speaking voice. That's a completely unaffected "plain and ordinary" speaking voice. You'll now have at least 10 or 12 takes, possibly as many as 20. When they're all aligned, your mission is to find the best bits in the "alternative" takes which might be useful in your "main" takes. The "main" takes are the artist's "normal" trademark sound - that's those few takes which you've just compiled into a coherent whole with the best bits selected, the rest muted. So, now you're looking for individual sounds, sometimes so small so as to be nearly ridiculous. Perhaps a "k" or a "t" or an "umm" or a "aaa" (or whatever) that you think sounded really cool in one of those "alternative takes. Sometimes you might find whole words or even phrases which sound awesome. At this point try to crossfade between the main take and the alternative bit and see if it works.

Once you develop this technique you'll be able to create amazing vocals - even from singers who are average. But remember, once you've comped the "final take," it's not really final. You now should ask your singer to re-sing the whole song "just like that." And then re-compile the whole take again, using the best bits from each performance.

This technique is frequently used by some of the best producers in the world. Remember: studio performance and live performance are two completely different animals. What works live may not work in the studio (and vice versa). In the studio, the idea is to create a vocal which people can listen to over and over and over...! Certain mannerisms which go down great live may have to go in the studio. Certain tricks which won't work live, may need to be perfected in the studio.

If you do your multiple-mood vocal session right, you'll wind up with the "best performance the singer never sung." Don't worry. It's not a reflection on you or your singer. People will judge you on the quality of your final product, not on how long it took you to develop it or how you did it!

LISTEN TO: 223-Q/Monday May 19, 2009